Full text of "Markers"

Markers

.* J

THE JOURNAL OF
THE ASSOCIATION FOR
GRAVESTONE STUDIES

y^^/^6X-i' /v...i<iHS- (_/L^ ^^

Markers VIII

Journal of
the Association for
Gravestone Studies

The Papers of

Dr. Ernest Caulfield

on Connecticut Carvers

and their Work

Edited by
James A. Slater

Theodore Chase
Editor of Markers

Association for Gravestone Studies
Worcester, Massachusetts

Association for Gravestone Studies

30 Elm Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01601

IBSN: 1-87381-01-6
ISSN: 0277-8726
LCN: 81-642903

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National

Standard for Information Sciences ~ Permanence of Paper for

Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Cover photo: Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Connecticut (photo by James Stater)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Preface v

Ernest J. Caulfield - Biographical Sketch 1
Connecticut Gravestone Articles:

I. George Griswold (1633 - 1704) 9

II. The Stanclift Family (1643 - 1785) 17
m. Ebenezer Drake (1739 - 1803) 39

IV. "The Glastonbury Lady" 51

V. The Thomas Johnsons 59

VI. Joseph Johnson (1698 - 1783?) 91

VII. "The Bat" 101

VIII. The Mannings 109

IX. The Collins Family 129

X. Charles Dolph (1776 - 1815) 141

XI. The Lambs (1724 - 1788) 153

XII. John Hartshorn ( 1650 - c. 1738) vs. 165
Joshua Hempstead (1678 - 1758)

Xin. TheKimballs 189

XIV. TheBucklands 205

XV. Three Manning Imitators 227

XVI. The Loomis Carvers 243

XVII. The Colonial Gravestone Carvings of Obadiah Wheeler 271
XVin. Wanted: The Hook-and-Eye Man 311
Index 338

ASSOCIATION FOR GRAVESTONE STUDIES

EDITORIAL BOARD

Theodore Chase, Editor
David Walters, Associate Editor
John L. Brooke James A. Slater

Jessie Lie Farber Richard F. Welch

This entire issue of Markers is devoted to the work of the late Dr. Ernest
Caulfield on the gravestones and carvers of Connecticut. It has been edited
by Dr. James A. Slater, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of
Cormecticut, who is himself an authority on the subject, author of The
Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut and the Men Who Made
Them, published for the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences
(Hamden, Conn., 1987), and a friend of Dr. Caulfield.

Dr. Caulfield was the pioneer student of Connecticut gravestones. He
ranks with Harriette Merrifield Forbes as one of the two people upon whose
work most of the recent burgeoning interest in eighteenth-century gravestone
studies is based.

From 1951 through 1967 Dr. Caulfield published twelve articles in the j5m/-
letin of the Cormecticut Historical Society, treating a variety of early Connec-
ticut carvers. This series was subsequently extended and expanded posthu-
mously by three further articles edited by Peter Benes and one published
jointly with James Slater. Together these articles form the essential
framework upon which most subsequent work has been and will be based.
An additional paper, by Dr. Caulfield and James Slater, was published by the
American Antiquarian Society, and a posthumous paper, written by Caulfield
himself, graced the first pages of the first volume of Markers. This article,
about Gershom Bartlett, "The Hook-and-Eye Man," is published chronologi-
cally and thus appears last, but it should perhaps be read first, for it provides
much insight into Caulfield's character and research method. We are
pleased, through the courtesy of the Connecticut Historical Society and the
American Antiquarian Society and the work of Dr. Slater, to be able to bring
all of Dr. Caulfield's gravestone publications together in one place.

Dr. Slater has edited the series using annotations from Dr. Caulfield's own
printed copies as well as material from his manuscript files, all of which Caul-

field left to the Connecticut Historical Society. Dr. Slater has also annotated,
amended and footnoted the series where it seemed necessary to bring Dr.
Caulfield's information up to date in the light of subsequent studies and to
bring the text into the condition that Dr. Caulfield wished it finally to have.
Unless otherwise indicated, the endnotes are those of Dr. Slater. The editor
of Markers has changed or inserted some of the punctuation, and made some
other minor changes not affecting the text, to make the style of the book
uniform throughout and consistent with the accepted style oi Markers.

The majority of photographic negatives of stones mentioned in the Caul-
field text have survived. These have been used extensively, but not entirely,
in this reprinting. Readers should note that these represent the condition of
the stones in the 1950s. Names in the captions are spelled as on the stones,
with omitted letters in brackets, although Caulfield's spelling in the text has
been retained. The Caulfield pictures have been supplemented in a number
of places, where none of his are now available or proved unsuitable for publi-
cation, by those of Daniel and Jessie Lie Farber (referred to in the captions
as Farbers), of Peter Benes and occasionally of James Slater. A number of
the Farber pictures are photographs of rubbings by Susan Kelly and Arme
Williams. Where the photographic source is not indicated, it is from an
original Caulfield negative. Towns referred to in the text and the captions
are in Connecticut unless otherwise indicated.

In Markers I James Slater provided a short biographical sketch of Dr. Caul-
field which he has expanded in the following biographical article. It is our
hope that this edition of Caulfield's work will stimulate further interest in
the fascinating gravestones of Connecticut.

We are grateful to the Harold J. Schaller Scholarship Award of the
American Institute of Commemorative Art for a grant in aid of this publica-
tion and to several anonymous donors.

Information about the submission of manuscripts for Markers may be ob-
tained from the editor, Theodore Chase, 74 Farm Street, Dover, Mas-
sachusetts 02030. For information about other Association for Gravestone
Studies publications, membership and activities, write to the executive direc-
tor, 30 Elm Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609.

Articles appearing in this journal are annotated and indexed in Historical
Abstracts and America: History and Life.

SOURCE OF THE ARTICLES

I. George Griswold, The Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin, 16 (No.
1, Jan. 1951).

II. The StancHft Family, Bulletin, 16 (No. 4, Oct. 1951) and 17 (No. 1,
Jan. 1952).

m. Ebenezer Drake, Bulletin, 18 (No. 4, Oct. 1953).

IV. The Glastonbury Lady, Bulletin, 19 (No. 4, Oct. 1954).

V. The Thomas Johnsons, Bulletin, 21 (No. 1, Jan. 1956).

VI. Joseph Johnson, Bulletin, 23 (No. 2, April 1958).

VII. The Bat, Bulletin, 25 (No. 1, Jan. 1960).

VIII. The Mannings, Bulletin, 27 (No. 3, July 1962).

IX. The Collins Family, Bulletin, 28 (No. 1, Jan. 1963).

X. Charles Dolph, Bulletin, 30 (No. 1, Jan. 1965).

XI. The Lambs, Bulletin, 31 (No. 1, Jan. 1966).

XII. John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead, Bulletin, 32 (No. 3, July 1967).

XIII. The Kimballs, Bulletin, 40 (No. 2, April 1975), ed. Peter Benes.

XIV. The Bucklands, Bulletin, 41 (No. 2, April 1976), ed. Peter Benes.

XV. Three Manning Imitators, Bulletin, 43 (No. 1, Jan. 1978), ed. Peter
Benes.

XVI. The Loomis Carvers, James A. Slater and Ernest Caulfield, Bulletin,
48 (No. 4, Oct. 1983).

XVII. Obadiah Wheeler, James A. Slater and Ernest Caulfield, American
Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, 84 (Part 1, 1974).

XVIII. The Hook-and-Eye Man, Ernest Caulfield (posthumously). Markers I
(1979/80).

Dr. Ernest J. Caulfield

Ernest Joseph Caulfield

ERNEST JOSEPH CAULFIELD
(1893-1972)

Dr. Ernest Caulfield, the foremost student of colonial Connecticut grave-
stones, was born in Hartford, Connecticut, September 8, 1893, the eighth
child of Edward Vincent Caulfield and Mary Catherine Boyle. His father
was born in England, and on Dr. Caulfield's birth certificate it is stated that
at the time of his birth his father was forty years old and gave his occupation
as "organist." He is said to have been a music dealer and organist at St.
Peters Church. His mother was thirty-six years old at the time of his birth
and was born in Richmond, Virginia.

Dr. Caulfield spent most of his early and professional life in Hartford,
receiving his early education there. He spent his first year of college at
Fordham and entered Trinity College in Hartford as a sophomore, graduat-
ing in 1916. He also received a master's degree from Trinity in 1922.

He attended Johns Hopkins Medical School, where he obtained his M.D.
in 1920, and spent an internship in Baltimore followed by a year teaching
physiology as an assistant in Johns Hopkins's famous School of Public
Health. Subsequently he accepted an internship in pediatrics at the Yale
Medical School,^ where he became an assistant clinical professor. Dr. Caul-
field opened his office in Hartford and went into private practice in the
spring of 1924, where he was an active pediatrician until he retired in 1952.
During his active medical years in Hartford Dr. Caulfield was connected with
the Hartford Dispensary, St. Francis Hospital, St. Agnes Home for Infants
and the Hartford Hospital, where he was the Chairman of the Department of
Pediatrics from 1945 to 1948.

Caulfield married Margaret France of Baltimore on August 23, 1922, in
New Haven. The Caulfields had two children, Robert Lee and Margaret
Frances. Mrs. Caulfield died in 1969. In 1959 the Caulfields moved to Old
Lyme, where he lived until near the time of his death in West Haven, Connec-
ticut, on May 16, 1972.

It is evident that Caulfield was a studious man almost from the start. As an
undergraduate he won the chemistry prize, graduated with honors in biology

2 Connecticut Gravestones

and chemistry and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He had an early interest
in medical literature, and an article that appeared in 1938 in the Semi-
centennial Volume of the American Pediatric Society noted that he was assis-
tant librarian of the Walter R. Steiner Library of the Hartford Medical
Society (he subsequently became librarian, succeeding Dr. Walter Steiner,
who had held the position for nearly forty years) and that he was "deeply in-
terested in the history of pediatrics, collected many rare books and wrote a
number of historical articles." This article also notes Dr. Caulfield's
biographical sketches of "the Countess of Lincoln, Blair, Walton, Armstrong
and Cadogan." It notes his description of bile peritonitis in infants and his in-
terest in the history of pyloric stenosis. Interestingly, the above article
describes him as being a "diligent, studious man, inclined to be rather intro-
spective and temperamental." He was called "Shorty" in reports on his ac-
tivities in one of the Trinity alumni notes.

No matter how much we recognize Dr. Caulfield's contributions to grave-
stone scholarship, we must also recognize that he came to this interst late in
his career. He published his first gravestone article when he was fifty-eight
years old. By this time he was a well respected medical historian and had pub-
lished two important books: one devoted to The Infant Welfare Movement in
the Eighteenth Century and a classic study in 1939 entitled A True History of
the Terrible Epidemic Vulgarly Called the Throat Distemper.. 1735 -1740 (New
Haven, Conn., 1939). This is the book of which Carl Bridenbaugh said, "it is
undeniably the ablest study of colonial medical history that I have ever come
across." Serious students of gravestones could do worse than peruse this
book to see how a real professional proceeds, as Dr. Caulfield untangles
from the terrible epidemic of the 1730s (one that killed 5,000 of New
England's 200,000 people - most of them children, an incidence much
greater than the colonial wars with the French and Indians) the confusion of
a diptheria epidemic in northern Massachusetts and southern New
Hampshire from a concurrent scarlet fever epidemic in the Boston area. In-
cidentally, in this book Caulfield suggests a causal connection between the
epidemic and the great religious revival called "The Great Awakening,"
which in turn Peter Benes believes had such a profound influence upon
gravestone carving style in northern Massachusetts. During the course of his

Ernest Joseph Caulfleld 3

Study of the epidemic Dr. Caulfield began to visit cemeteries in an attempt to
document the death of children, as is evidenced by the photographs of
children's gravestones in the book. Thus we can feel with some confidence
that Caulfield's interest in gravestones arose from his work on the throat dis-
temper epidemic. He also wrote scholarly papers on early measles epidemics
and even on the pediatric aspects of the Salem witchcraft episode.^

Prior to his retirement Dr. Caulfield carried on an active research
program on Connecticut gravestone carvers, amassing a tremendous file on
the genealogy of the carving families as well as data and photographs of the
stones themselves.

When Caulfield moved to Old Lyme, he began a rejuvenation of the local
historical society, amassing a wealth of early documentary evidence concern-
ing the early history of Old Lyme and the surrounding area. In 1968 he was
elected "Citizen of the Year" by the residents of Old Lyme (no mean feat!),
chiefly for his research into America's first authenticated "riot." This was a
comic clash between residents of Old Lyme and those of New London in the
1660s in a hayfield where both parties claimed ownership of the field and ar-
rived at the same time to cut hay for their respective ministers.

That Dr. Caulfield had a temper as well as a sense of humor soon became
evident in Old Lyme. He served for three years on the Board of Education
but resigned when he became a controversial figure because of his vehement
opposition to what he believed to be the extensive athletic programs at the
expense of academics. "There was a fight every night," he is quoted as saying.

Unfortunately, his eyesight began to deteriorate after his retirement, and
apparently his health to some extent determined his retirement, for he wrote
in a letter to the American Antiquarian Society in late 1952 that he was "just
getting back on my feet after two months in bed and I have given up my prac-
tice. Nothing more serious than a touch of generalized disintegration."

My own personal acquaintance with Dr. Caulfield was a short but produc-
tive one. I hope that a short account of it will give a hint of the flavor of the
man. I had been engaged in a study of a carver identified by Allan Ludwig in
his seminal book Graven Images (Middletown, Conn., 1966) as the "Collins
Master," a carver of whom Ludwig was somewhat unsure as to whether he
was Benjamin Collins or another. Tucked away in Dr. Caulfield's article on

4 Connecticut Gravestones

the Collins family I had noticed a short comment discussing some stones with
straight aristocratic noses that he thought were carved by a man named
Obadiah Wheeler.

It is hard today with our AGS society and network of people in com-
munication with one another to realize the isolation that gravestone students
were working in only a relatively few years ago. Who was this Dr. Caulfield?
Could he possibly still be alive? Eventually through the Connecticut State
Historian I discovered that he was indeed alive and living in Old Lyme. I
wrote him, what today I am sure must have amused him as a very naive let-
ter, but it hit him in the right spot, and he invited me to visit him. He was
living in a charming house in Old Lyme, but was obviously nearly blind. It
was a frustrating afternoon for him as I had difficulty telling him names of
carvers, and although he tried very hard with a large lens to see my
photographs he could only occasionally do so. However, his memory for
given stones in given graveyards was remarkable. It was obvious that some of
them were very old friends of his indeed. We ended the day with him taking
me to a room in his house where a closet was filled with manila folders con-
taining data on carver after carver that I had never heard of. He gave me a
fat package marked "Peter Nity." This was the Obadiah Wheeler folder. I
absorbed this material like a sponge and went back with an outline of what I
had in mind. It is one of my most treasured memories that he said, "If we can
do that, it will be the best paper ever done on Connecticut gravestones." In
any event, a few trips later we had agreed to collaborate on a Wheeler paper
and had started with it. I would write it and he would tell me where I was
wrong, stupid, naive etc. (literally). Unfortunately, I delayed final work on
this because of a collecting trip to Australia. When I returned. Dr. Caulfield
had died. But the short time we had together gave me a great respect for his
scholarship, a respect that has continued to grow with the passing years, and
a keen interest in him as a man. Even in his last years, he had a crisp, some-
times biting sense of humor, and he was intolerant of hurried, inaccurate
work. I have often thought how unfortunate it is that AGS was not founded
twenty years earlier so that his scholarly approach to work could have been
passed on directly to the next generation of scholars. His articles are ex-
tremely "trimmed down" and only in part reflect the hours of laborious effort

Ernest Joseph Caulfield 5

upon which they are based.

One can visuahze this short, intense man peering at a small child's stone
and trying to understand what was meant by the "bloody flux" or the "numb
palsy," his keen eye noting the death of a whole series of children at-
tributable, as he appreciated, to some genetic defect, or families wiped out in
smallpox epidemics ~ the old "king of terrors." It must be admitted that,
while to us as gravestone students it is his work on gravestone attribution that
seems to be his major contribution, his biographers pass this work over with
scant mention and concentrate chiefly on his historical unraveling of the
causes, spread and contemporary misconceptions concerning the early
epidemics of New England.

One can see in his published work and even more in hastily scribbled
notes in his manuscripts (all too few, alas) the salty nature of his humor and
the medical perspective showing through. For example, when a young baby
survived its mother in Hampton, he penciled, "Baby died 11 weeks, mother
died 2 weeks. Infant survived the mother. Possibly artificially fed and had its
electrolytes all shot to pieces," and on a couple whose gravestone indicated
that they had been industrious and hard-working all their lives and had had
fourteen children, "they were in the monkey business." But he was a compas-
sionate man and occasionally one catches a glimmer of sadness over the
death of so many young children during colonial days, deaths that he must
have realized, from his vantage point in the twentieth century, were unneces-
sary.

Fortunately, not all of his "flavor" was lost with him, for in his article on
Gershom Bartlett, republished here, we are allowed to see him at work: driv-
ing through rural Stafford and being asked by a "native" whom he had told of
his interest in old gravestones, "and what good does that do you?"; his keen
research eye scanning hundreds of probates in search of just who his enig-
matic "hook-and-eye man" really was, and his joy at finding Gershom
Bartlett's grave in Vermont during the course of a field trip. This paper
catches the enthusiasm of gravestone field work on crisp New England
autumn days.

It is perhaps fitting to end this short sketch by letting Dr. Caulfield speak
for himself with quotes gleaned from his publications or found scribbled on

Connecticut Gravestones

the edges of some of his manuscripts.

Of Joseph Johnson — Being in the gravestone business, he seemed to have an
unusually good nose for epidemics.

Of Ebenezer Drake — Today we would much prefer Drake's simple primitives,
but in his time his fantastic nightmares were the rage. It all goes to prove that
fashions in hats, automobiles or tombstones are beyond the ken of mortal man.

Of William Stanclift ~ One can be positively certain that Elizabeth Francis
[Newington 1728] was not an inebriate who died from pneumonia after washing her
hair on a Saturday night, although the picture on her gravestone makes it seem so.

Of William Stanclift's stone for John Gill (in Portland, Connecticut, 1713) —
Skulls were originally intended to remind passersby of death and so to frighten
them, but if any were frightened by this skull it must have been from seeing hair
growing from a scalped calvarium.

Of "The Bat" — The less the Gay stone is described the better, for its weirdness
almost defies descripton. It is difficult to say whether The Bat was elated or
depressed when he created this design.

Of "The Bat" - Figs in the early days were symbols of Paradise, or Land of
Plenty; but unaware of their significance The Bat substituted his plain round masses,
signifying nothing.

To a meeting of the New York Pediatrics Society 1953 — I think every doctor
and particularly every pediatrician should cultivate some sort of a hobby. It need not
be pediatric history of course. It could be music, etching, painting, photography or
even the gentle art of shooting crap. It doesn't make much difference so long as you
start in when you are young and become proficient at it. Because there comes a
time (INEVITABLY) when you begin to detect some cobwebs growing gently over
the surface of your brain; when you begin to confuse your histoplasmosis with your
toxoplasmosis, and your Rh's with your Ph's and all the other little h's; and when
that time comes it is very comforting to have this gentle little hobby on which you
can go galloping off in all directions at once at the same time keeping out of the
other fellow's way.

This hobby gives you a chance to get away from people, especially live ones,
and more especially those you do not like.

Of seven James Stanclifts [in the area] one died in infancy, two more, to the
amateur genealogist's delight considerately moved to other towns.

James had decided to work for William, that is until an influential and subtle
force by the name of Abigail Brown made him change his mind. A few weeks after
he married her, twenty-two-year-old James Stanclift decided to go in business for
himself.

Giles & Joel Loomis in South Windsor ~ "a froglet stone."

Ernest Joseph CaulField

John Lay (1723) -- "The sweet, coy skull."

Frequently he left the lettering to an apprentice or a son with the customary
new and strange ideas of a younger generation

If you have never been in an old New England graveyard, you should not go in
one, unless you are physically able to run out.

A speech in the 1950s -- Naturally I am very happy to have this opportunity to
talk to the Connecticut State Nurses Association. Outside of a graveyard I haven't
seen so many interesting people together in a long long time . . . many of my most
precious stones are within a fifteen-mile radius of Storrs. Another reason is that the
Halloween season seems to be an appropriate time to talk on such a lugubrious sub-
ject and particularly appropriate tonight because the way things are going tomorrow
may be the last Halloween.

AH this medical history business is like modern long-haired poetry, you either
like it or you don't.

Of Zerubbabel Collins - A Connecticut Yankee who sold beautiful poetry at
cut rates.

Of an angel stone in Hadley, Massachusetts - Even heavenly angels could not
appear in public without their Uttle skirts.

These are not the dancing, musical Rockettes of Broadway; they are the Angel-
lettes of the Connecticut River Valley, n.b. Angels have belly-buttons.

Of a Salem, Massachusetts, skeleton stone - The meaning is clear, the
anatomy is not.

Of William Buckland - Like many colonial stonecutters he was more skillful
with his hands than with his head.

Of Ebenezer Drake - By this time his imagination was on the loose and he
didn't know where to stop.

Don't believe manufactured history.

Those charming little towns - Canterbury and Windham and Lebanon, etc.
and (what I consider one of the garden spots of the earth in autumn when the leaves
are changing)-the old graveyard on the crest of the hill in Bolton. In passing I
might say th&t just in case anyone is seriously contemplating, or making plans for the
future, I can heartily recommend that old graveyard way up there on the hill as an
ideal spot, where you can have a bird's eye view of the resurrection.

One very pleasant way to recapture some of the original charm of an old New
England town is to pay a leisurely visit to its graveyard, usually situated on a hill over-
looking a river, lake or beautiful valley. This peaceful plot of ground dedicated to
the memory of the past is frequently very much the same as it was two or three
hundred years ago; and the stones which it contains are among the very few material
things which were made by the early colonists for the benefit of future generations.

Connecticut Gravestones

Their houses, furniture, books, newspapers and even their metal coins were made
expressly for their own use and pleasure, but the stone monuments which they
placed over the graves of their dead were made to last, at least they hoped, forever.
In other words those stones were placed there for us to read.

James A. Slater

NOTES

1. The various obituaries and college alumni reports are sometimes contradictory as to ex-
actly where Dr. Caulfield was during his internship years. This apparently stems from a
quick biographical sketch that he dashed off for Trinity at some unspecified date. In this
he says that he was married in 1923. On the typed copy before me has been written, "My
hunch is that Ernie dashed this off himself, probably at someone else's mgent request, pos-
sibly confusing him about his date of marriage and Bob's legitimacy."

2. For detailed information on Caulfield's work see L.F. Stevenson, "The Historical Writings
of Ernest Caulfield," Journal of the History of Medicine, 20(l%5):38-42.

[\J^Q 1 or A\ H 'D-On ^^"^ 10 D\ TB
Oi 'ii. I ■ V.' r.huiiOv SlOii"

.^J^

Fig. 1 Ephraim Huit Tomb 1644, Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.
Carved by George Griswold. Photograph by Farbers.

Connecticut Gravestones

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES I
George Griswold (1633 - 1704)

In the Center Church graveyard in Hartford there are about thirty
seventeenth-century gravestones which were obviously cut by the same artist
since they so closely resemble one another. The Windsor graveyard has
twenty similar stones; and the old graveyards of Suffield, Westfield, and Nor-
thampton each contain three or four. There is, however, none in Middletown
or, except possibly the recut 1648 tablestone, in Wethersfield. This
geographical distribution strongly suggests that the man who made these
stones lived in Hartford or Windsor. He did most of his work between 1657
and 1700, although a few stones dated before this period, such as those for
the Reverend Ephraim Huit (Windsor, 1644) (Fig. 1)^ and Timothy Stanley
(Hartford, 1648), may have been cut by him.

The smooth even texture of these thick reddish-brown stones indicates
that they were quarried in Windsor. They can be easily distinguished from
the coarse granular sandstones that came from Middletown not only by their
texture and color but also by their edges, most of the Middletown stones
having chamfered edges. For the most part, these Windsor stones have right-
angled shoulders, rounded tops, and carefully cut yet simple undecorated bor-
ders which closely follow the outlines of the stones. Exercising every colonial
stonecutter's privilege, this one occasionally departed experimentally from
his favorite design to make a stone that was more nearly square, and there is
one in Windsor shaped like the top half of an octagon. On two out of every
three stones the inscribed surface is flush with the border and separated from
it by a deep continuous line which usually ends considerably above the level
of the ground (Fig. 2). A few stones, such as those for Stephen Hosmer
(Hartford, 1678) and B. W. (Windsor, 1680) have no borders. On the
remainder the inscribed surfaces have been carefully rubbed and planed leav-
ing the one- or two-inch borders in bold relief (Fig. 3). These overhanging
borders, incidentally, may have been so cut to protect the inscriptions from
weathering.

On the whole, the lettering is deep and still easily legible, but even when

10 George Griswold

shallow, it is still deep enough to be legible on close inspection, which is
more than can be said of many gravestones that have been exposed to far
fewer than 250 Connecticut winters. Although one may find a few forgivable
misspelled words, such as "neer" for "near" and "yeres" for "years," this artist
made no gross blunders. He was, however, frequently cramped for space and
was obliged to carve the final letter of a word or a hyphen in the border of
the stone. His unusual division of words was in keeping with the colonial cus-
tom of utilizing every inch of space. This same habit manifests itself in old
manuscripts containing words which are divided in ways that would now be
considered incorrect.

The one characteristic which distinguishes the work of this craftsman from
his contemporaries is his indiscriminate use of small and capital letters, as
well as other minor peculiarities in lettering, such as dotting his capital Fs
even at the beginning of words like lOHN or IN. He usually made tall L's,
extending their vertical bars far above the line, while his P's were cut to ex-
tend far below the line. His capital Y's resemble modern small y's in that the
descender extends below the line. Only occasionally did he use the thorn.
These peculiarities should not be interpreted as signs of illiteracy, because, as
mentioned before, there are very few mistakes in spelling and, what is more,
no illiterate yokel would have been so fond of poetry. His verses, unlike
those so frequently found on eighteenth-century gravestones, were not meant
to scare the wits out of the passers-by; they were sympathetically carved as
comforting words for friends of the deceased, such as the verse on the stone
for Joseph Drake, who died in Windsor in 1657:

My body sleeps
My soul is blest
In armes of Christ
Where I do rest.

On the stone for B. W. (Windsor, 1680) a bit of the artist's philosophy is
revealed:

What once was writ by one upon this stone
He hears is now washt out and lost and gone
Twas writ hoping in time he might it find
Not on this stone but on the reders minde.

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 2 Peter Brown 1692. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.

Fig. 3 Mary Farn[s] worth 1678. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.

12 George Griswold

These gravestones are all very simple in composition. Never did the artist
use those cynically smiling skulls with gnashing teeth that so frequently adorn
contemporaneous Massachusetts stones. Massachusetts and Connecticut
gravestones before 1720 are not in the same class and can hardly be com-
pared, for the Massachusetts artists were exceedingly skillful with their
chisels and they carved on slate which was a far better medium for minute
detail. But it should be remembered that Massachusetts gravestones reached
the peak of perfection in the seventeenth century, indicating that the artists
were very likely under foreign influence, whereas Connecticut gravestones
evolved from very plain designs and are more representative of native
American art. Connecticut stone craftsmen, off in isolated wildernesses, ap-
pear to have been self-trained men apparently unaware that Boston was the
hub of the gravestone universe.

Who was this pioneer craftsman who won the respect of so many of his
contemporaries, whose reputation had spread at least as far as Northampton,
and who was, perhaps, the most original of the earliest American sculptors?
There is no direct evidence of his identity. Not one of his stones is signed by
as much as one initial; and probate records of those whose graves were
marked have been vainly searched for his name. There is, however, convinc-
ing circumstantial evidence that he was the George Griswold who was born
in Kenilworth, England, in 1633, who married Mary Holcomb (1632-1708),
and who died in Windsor on September 3, 1704.^

Among the Winthrop papers in the Massachusetts Historical Society are
sue letters written by Captain John Allyn of Hartford "To the Honourable
Major John Winthrop at his house in New Lx)ndon."^ The first letter, dated
March 17, 1682 (1683?), impHes that Allyn, having been commissioned to
procure a gravestone for Elizabeth Winthrop, who had died in 1673, was wait-
ing patiently for the Major to supply the inscription. The second letter is
much the same:

Hartford May 21, 1681/2
Hon Sir I heartily salute you, in reference to your commands about
the Tombe stone &c I have carefully attended it, and had I known
your pleasure what to write upon it, it would have been fmished by this
time, & therefore pray by the next let me know your pleasure. I
agreed with George Griswold to doe it not for any sum but he
promised to use a good conscience in it & so I doubt not but he will,

Connecticut Gravestones 13

her name & age & time of her death will be necessary as also whose
consort she was, . . .

Honored sir your friend and servant,
John Allyn

On November 14, 1682, Winthrop's inscription not having arrived, Allyn
submitted his own in which he tried his hand at poetry:

Here lyes the body of Mrs Eliz: Winthrop wife to the [late - scratched
out] Honourable John Winthrop Esquire Governor for many years of
this jurisdiction who deceased the first day of december: 1673: [etatis
- scratched out] in the fifty six year of her age.

Honour & virtue grace & courtesy

And many great endowments here doe lye

which scarcely in a matron [may be - scratched out] have
been seen

in our New England [since bohemias queen - scratched out]
had she never been.

Winthrop obviously did not appreciate Allyn's pitiful poetry because the
proposed inscription was not returned. Letters of April 23, 1683, and
January 7, 1684, reveal Allyn still waiting for instructions:

Sir, your mother's Tombe stone is not set up yet, for want of your ap-
probation of what shall be writ upon it, the man is very earnest to doe
it pleas therefore to send it by this bearer together with her age and
day of death. Griswold will doe it now by reason of our great losses
heare it is a time when worke is better to be atained than at other
times & he would gladly pay some of his country rate that way. . .

By July 6, 1684, more than two years after the first request, the inscription
had not arrived.

The George Griswold mentioned in these letters was unquestionably the
one who died in Windsor in 1704, because the inventory of his estate shows
that he owned augers, gouges, narrow axes, wedges, "Tools for ingraveing," as
well as an interest in "the quariefield." He also owned shoemaker's tools, and
a fifth interest in the grist mill. It is said that his relations with the Indians
were exceptionally friendly; nevertheless the inventory also shows that he
kept a cutlass and belt, an old sword, "A Gunn & pistall and Amunition" just
in case.

Since this George Griswold is known from the Winthrop letters to have
been cutting gravestones in 1682, it is reasonable to conclude that he cut the

George Griswold

Stones for his own two children, Abigail and Samuel (Palisados Burying
Ground, Windsor), who died in May and June of that same year, very prob-
ably from an epidemic disease. In October, 1682, there was a Day of
Thanksgiving in Connecticut for the abatement of "the late, sore-sickness and
deaths that have been in sundry of our plantations," but the nature of the dis-
ease that carried off the Griswold children still remains unknown. Their
gravestones, however, can still be seen in Windsor, and from them as well as
from the stone in Westfield for his son Edward Griswold, 1661-1688, can be
learned most of the characteristics of George Griswold's art.

Fig. 4 Mercy Buel 1688. Simsbury.

Connecticut Gravestones 15

There were other gravestone sculptors working in the Connecticut River
valley during Griswold's time. The first James Stanclift of Middletown was
independently developing his own style on stones which he obtained from his
quarry "on the Est syde of the Great River." In her delightful, instructive,
and scholarly book on early New England gravestones, Mrs. Harriette M.
Forbes discloses that Matthew Griswold, Jr., of Lyme was paid (1679) for the
stone that still marks Lady Fenwick's grave; Mrs. Forbes also mentions that,
according to tradition, the first Matthew Griswold may have cut a similar
stone for Henry Wolcott in Windsor (1655).'' Her illustration of the stone for
John Howell (Southampton, L.I., 1696) shows a Connecticut sandstone bear-
ing a coat-of-arms, which is interesting in view of the fact that Geoge Gris-
wold also carved a coat-of-arms on the stone for nine-day-old Mary
Farnsworth (Windsor, 1678) (Fig. 3). The lettering of these two stones,
however, shows that they were cut by different hands. In Northampton and
in Simsbury there are a few stones, such as that for Mercy Buel (Simsbury,
1688) (Fig. 4), which superficially resemble George Griswold's stones, but
they do not have that finished touch which he had acquired by 1688.

After Griswold's death, and particularly between 1720 and 1740, another
stonecutter, apparently in Bolton, was attempting to imitate George
Griswold's style, but this is another chapter in the history of Connecticut
gravestones. In his recently published list of Connecticut stonecutters, Ken-
dall P. Hayward mentions two Griswolds who cut stones early in the
nineteenth century,^ so it appears that the stonecutting art was in the Gris-
wold blood. But for originality none surpassed the first George Griswold, a
man of "good conscience," and, as of now, the earliest stone sculptor in the
American colonies to be definitely identified.

NOTES

Notes 2, 3, 5 and the first part of 4 appear as "Acknowledgements" in the original article.

1. In Connecticut Gravestones II Dr. Caulfield notes payment to a man named Gibbs. He
states that the Ephriam Huit tomb has lettering similar to that of George Griswold but dif-
fers "in some particulars, notably the capital H's and Y's." He concludes that the Huit
stone was tentatively and perhaps mistakenly attributed to Griswold.

George Griswold

2. Glenn E. Griswold, The Griswold Family, (Middleboro, Me., 1935-1938), 18.

3. Winthrop Manuscripts, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 10:38-41. Eva L.
Butler, "Abstracts of Winthrop Manuscripts," Mss., Cotm. State Library.

4. Harriette Merrfield Forbes, Gravestones of Early New England And the Men who made
them 1653-1800 (Boston, 1927), 100. Kevin Sweeney, in a letter to J. A. Slater dated Nov.
12, 1985, definitely attributes the Wolcott tomb to Matthew Griswold. However, as of that
date, he states that he was not able to attribute any headstones to Matthew Griswold.

5. Kendall P. Hayward, Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin. XV, 1.

2 1 P P OPv '^

Fig. 1 Zipporah Harris 1689. Riverside Burying Ground, Middletown.
Carved by James Stanclift

The Stanclift Family 17

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES II
The Stanclift Family (1643 - 1785)

Connecticut had many gravestone cutters in the seventeenth and early
eighteenth century, but only a few of them should ever be taken seriously.
Even were it possible it would serve no useful purpose to catalogue the
numerous local yokels throughout the colony who with more bravm than skill
crudely cut a few initials and numerals on boulders which served as grave-
stones, particularly when better stones were too costly or otherwise unavail-
able. A few men, however, devoted considerable thought, time, and labor to
their work, and the most successful of these deserve to be classified as
colonial artists. George Griswold (1633-1704), the earliest stonecutter so far
identified, was the subject of a previous communication; and could he be
identified another artist in Simsbury deserves some recognition, for his well-
executed but unaffected style also appeals to the average eye (see Connec-
ticut Gravestones /, Fig. 4). This paper concerns a third artist, perhaps the
best known and most popular of all, if one can judge from the geographical
distribution of his extant stones. His services were in demand mostly in Mid-
dletown and Hartford, but he also carved stones for prominent families in
Suffield, Windsor, Wethersfield, Glastonbury, Lyme, Preston, and Long Is-
land. Indeed, both he and Griswold were recognized as far away as Boston,
and in the old Granary, Copp's Hill, and King's Chapel graveyards can be
seen many large table-stones from Connecticut sandstone quarries, despite
the fact that greater Boston gravestone artists were as skillful as those to be
found anywhere in the British colonies. For some reason, possibly because
slate stones of the required size could not be easily quarried, a Connecticut
tablestone soon became the mark of affluence and distinction in the largest
and most important city of the colonies.

James Stanclift (1634? - 1712)
Just as Eva L. Butler's abstracts of the Winthrop manuscripts furnished
the clue that eventually led to the discovery of George Griswold and his style,
so the same abstracts sent me scurrying to Boston in search of this other ar-

18 Connecticut Gravestones

tist. The Massachusetts Historical Society possesses four or five letters from
Capt. John Hamlin of Middletown to John Winthrop of New London which
reveal that the stonecutter's name was Stanclift. It appears that he had made
a contract with Wait Winthrop of Boston for a tombstone to cost about £4-8-
0, and this money, according to directions, was to be paid to Nathaniel
Loring, who in turn was to send to Stanclift forty gallons of molasses. Read-
ing between the lines it appears that the molasses was delivered but not the
tombstone, for the "ould man" died not only before the stone was even
quarried but also without his leaving any record of the transactions. Ap-
parently hearing of Stanclift's death (a very severe influenza epidemic swept
through Connecticut at that time) Winthrop dispatched a letter on October 7,
1712, to his friend Hamlin in Middletown. About seven months later Hamlin
answered:

Middletown May the 2^^: 1713.

M*^ John Winthrop.

S^ yours of the: 7 of October: Last Came to my hand & I observed
the Contents am sory I have ben so unfortunate in your small Affaire
there was no such stones gott before the ould man dyed tho they ware
payd for and since Little hath ben don of that natuer by reason the
ould quary was spent and no new one Could be opened til the frost
was out of the ground: and they had much Stone Ingaged and payd
for before yours ware spoke for but I hope they will com in time: I
have spoke with them about the 4 10^: you say your father payd
them for A tomb ston: but the young men say they know nothing of
itt: and therefore desier you would inform them when itt was and who
it was payd so that they may make Enquiry about it for there sattisfac-
tion this with mine & my wifes harty service to your selfe & Lady is all
the nedefull at Present

From your humble servantt
John Hamlin

[Superscribed] Capt Hamlin May 2 1713.

To Mr John Winthrop in New London
per Capt Georg PhiHps.

A good two years later, the administrator of Stanclift's estate was still not
satisfied that the money had ever been paid to Loring, whereupon the justly
irritated John Winthrop forwarded all the pertinent papers, including

The Stanclift Family

Loring's receipt, to Middletown with a stern demand for justice. Hamlin
then wrote another letter:

Midletown Novemb'' y^ 2*^ 1715

Mr John Winthrop

S*^ inclosed is the papers you gave me about ould m*^ StancUfts Engage-
ment to your Hon Father About A tomb I have shoed them to his
Eldest son that Is Administrator on his fathers Estate and he tels me
If they ware now to be bargained for they woold not be don for halfe
as much more but I tould him he must perform his fathers Ingagement
seing he had recevd good part of the mony Long since so then he sayd
he would do it and now he tels me it is Almost don fitt to set up but he
thinks it will be best not to set it up till the Spring that the work may
have the Sumer to settle it before any frost coms to heave it. which
might rong it If it ware set up before the winter sets in and I advised
him so to do thinking it might be best this with my harty service to
your selfe and good Lady Is all the nedefull at present from S^

Your humble servantt
John Hamlin

[Superscribed] To M*^ John Winthrop Living In New London per Iz-
rahiah Wetmore papers & Rec ^ for the Tomb at Boston dated 1710.

"\\

SVMMER^aCtED

im,

Fig. 2 Han [n] ah Sumner 1689. Riverside Burying Ground, Middletown.

20 Connecticut Gravestones

These letters leave little doubt but that the "ould man" Stanclift who made
the original bargain was James, first settler in East Middletown, who died
October 3, 1712, according to his gravestone, aged "about 78 years." Possibly
he did some brass and smith work on the side, but a partial list from his es-
tate, which amounted in all to £191-3-10, shows that he was primarily inter-
ested in cutting stone:

quary tools

Iron and steel and smith tools

stone cut out of the quary

brass

several books

dwelling hous and shop

half an acre of land abuting on

the

quary

and the

quary

six acres of land at home

Absolute proof that Stanclift carved any early stones in Middletown has
not yet been obtained. He was paid £2-8-0 from the estate of Obadiah Allen,
Jr. (Middletown, 1702), presumably for a gravestone, but unfortunately
Allen's stone cannot now be found. There are, however, some twelve or fif-
teen stones in the Riverside Cemetery in Middletown which have many
characteristics in common, and since none is dated after 1712 (the latest still
standing is dated 1705) they may safely be credited to the "ould man." For
the most part these stones have simple, rounded tops, though there are a few
with square or with rounded, ornamented shoulders. Just as nowadays some
persons may frequently be identified by their handwriting, so colonial
stonecutters may frequently be identified by their distinctive peculiarities in
lettering. Stanclift's peculiarities consisted of his invariable use of capital let-
ters which were unusually large in proportion to the size of the stone, care-
fully cut letters with serifs, frequent use of dots or periods between words,
and, most important of all, a distinctive capital A, sometimes crossed, some-
times not, but invariably cut with a long horizontal bar like a canopy across
the top (Figs. 1 and 2). Occasionally he used Roman numerals; and some-
times when making a double L as in HALL or SHALL he placed the second
L within the angle of the first. He apparently abhorred a vacant space, for
his inscriptions usually occupied the whole front surface of the stone and left
no room for a border. Once in a while he managed to include a fairly long

The Stanclift Family

verse, which, incidentally, has a faint resemblance to modem poetry:

HERE - LYES - OVR - DEACON
HALL - WHO - STVDYED
PEACE - WITHALL - WAS
VPRIGHT - IN - HIS - LIFE! - VOYD
OF MALIGNANT - STRIFE
GON - TO - HIS - REST - LEFT VS
IN - SORROW - DOVBTLES
HIS - GOOD - WORKS - WILL
HIM - FOLLOW

Fig. 3 Richard Smith [Jr.] 1703. Green Burying Ground, Glastonbury.

22 Connecticut Gravestones

If all Connecticut gravestones with such canopied capital A's can be at-
tributed to the first James Stanclift (and there are very few about which I
have any doubt) then he was the first Connecticut artist to depict a skull. He
probably had never seen the exquisitely carved winged skulls on Boston
gravestones else he would never have attempted to imitate them, but it is
likely that he did hear about them from some Middletown sea captain who
had sailed down the river and away to Boston to swap cheese for sealing wax
or tombstones for molasses. At any rate, the little stone for Hannah Sumner
(Middletown, 1689) (Fig. 2) as well as the stone for Richard Smith, Jr.
(Glastonbury, 1703) (Fig. 3) are among the very few remaining examples of
James Stanclift's primitive designs.

Very likely it was this first James Stanclift who quarried the original cover-
ing stone on the tomb for Henry, Jr. and Captain Samuel Wolcott (Windsor,
1709). Unfortunately the present stone appears to be a reproduction.
Nevertheless the details concerning the construction of this tomb show that it
was a major undertaking:

To Stantlif for the covering Stoone 4. .10. .0
To half the charge of thre men two day to fech two stoones

from middletown boat victuals and drinke 0. .12. .6
To carting ye stone up petty charges 2s picking Stoone and

ccirting to ye burying yard and a Stone bought of Gibs

to ingrave all 0. .07. .8

To a barill of lime at hertford fraight and Caryage 0. .07. .0

To two men to tend masun a day horse to draw small stons & sand 0. .05. .0

To 2 large Stoones to build on and Carting of them 0. .05. .0

To carting the top stone to ye burying yard & treating the hands 0. .01. .6
To cart more Stons a hand to tend masun a day, drink for

12 hand to lay on ye stone 0. .05. .0

To ye masun for his work 30s my trobell in this a faire 5s 1. .15. .0

Stanclift left a widow, Mary, who died in December, 1712; a daughter,
Martha, who married Thomas Bevin; and two sons, William and James, both
of whom cut gravestones. The stonecutting art was dominant in the Stanclift
blood, for the trade was handed down from one generation to the next
throughout the eighteenth century.

The Stanclifl Family

Fig. 4 Phebe Marvil 1707. Duck River Burying Ground, Old Lyme.
Photograph by Farbers.

Connecticut Gravestones

William Stanclift (1687 or 1688 - 1761)

William Stanclift, elder of the two sons, administered his father's estate,
probably carved the gravestones for his parents, and because of similarity in
styles, he seems to have been very closely associated with his father in the
gravestone business. In fact, there is one stone in Old Lyme (Phebe Marvil,
1707) (Fig. 4) which has canopied capital A's like those cut by James the first,
but which should probably be attributed to William's training days because it
has so many blunders on it, such as backward capital G's and N's, as well as
some spelling which the father would have been ashamed of:

HVR - BODY - ONLY
RESTING - HERE
HVR - SOVL - IS
FLED - TWO - A - HIER
SPEAR

*^kri I7i< ITS 7^7

f "

. '^"'^<V

Fig. 5 Thomas Barber 1713. Simsbury.

The Stanclift Family 25

Fig. 6 Olive Stanclift 1719. Portland.

So far, two stones can positively be attributed to William -- that for
Nathaniel Hooker (Hartford, 1711), the surface of which has been nearly
destroyed from shaling, and that for Thomas Barber (Simsbury, 1713), whose
estate paid "to Will"^ Stancleft for Tombs. 16"." (Fig. 5). It is a safe conclu-
sion that he also cut the gravestones for his wife, Olive (Wright), who died in
East Middletown (once Chatham, now Portland) in 1719 (Fig. 6), because
the headstones are so very much alike.

From these examples of his work it is possible to determine some of
William's stone-cutting characteristics. Since the father was near the top in
his profession, it would have been natural for the son to follow the "ould
man" in most essentials. Thus we find William generally using capital letters,
contracted double L's, and sometimes, especially on his early stones, using
dots or periods between words. But as time went on, William acquired other
characteristics, most important of which was the four- to eight-petalled
rosette in the finial (Fig. 6). On the Barber stone this is incomplete and
hardly noticeable. He was more inclined than the "ould man" to use com-
bined letters, occasionally combining even three letters into one. To fill in
vacant spaces William used short wavy lines, and so ingrained became this
habit that the gravestone hunter should be wary in attributing a stone to Wil-
liam without at least a few of these meaningless adornments. At different
stages in his career he acquired other minor peculiarities, such as extending
the apices of his capital A's a little above the line, carving his capital R's with
attractive little bustles, and using a script th in the instead of the customary

Connecticut Gravestones

thorn.

By far the most interesting aspect of William's work is the evolution of his
skull designs. The skull on his father's tablestone is similar to that on the
stone for John Gill (Portland, 1713) (Fig. 7) and shows the simple triangular
nose and piercing bullet-hole eyes. Skulls were originally intended to remind
passers-by of death and so to frighten them, but if any were frightened by this
skull it must have been from seeing hair growing from a scalped calvarium.
The sweet, coy skull on the stone for John Lay the third (Old Lyme, 1723) is
rarely found, for it was only a step in the evolution toward William's common
full-face skulls, some sad, some ludicrous, but all resembling the pumpkins
children use on Halloween. One can be positively certain that Elizabeth
Francis (Newington, 1728) (Fig. 8) was not an inebriate who died from
pneumonia after washing her hair on a Saturday night, although the picture
on her gravestone makes it seem so.

??^'i^ ".?4' ^v%^.^ ^l:y^^#<^^fek^C'^

Fig. 7 John Gill 1713. Portland.

The Stanclift Family

tE, LIES Ife

%uzmm

'TAMES m
mo DTED Aft

-■OF'HEF^ W^M

P' .f^'^,>

Fig. 8 Elizabeth Francis 1728. Newington.

On rare occasions William carved a border around his inscription, and he
also used symbols, such as the pick and shovel alongside the hourglass on the
stone for Marcy Hale [sic Halle] who was "struck dead by a clap of thunder"
in Glastonbury, 1719. But except for his skulls, William's stones are, on the
whole, very plain and very much alike. He was an extraordinarily popular
stonecutter, nevertheless. In 1724 he swapped Joshua Hempstead a pair of
gravestones for "8 lb of wooU," and in 1742 he was still shipping uncut stones
to New London for Hempstead to inscribe. In fact, from about 1710 to about
1745 he carved innumerable stones which may still be seen in almost every
old town in the Connecticut River valley south of Enfield.

James Stanclift (1692 - 1772)
Of the James Stanclifts who lived on the "Est syd the grate River" in Mid-
dletown at one time or another during the eighteenth century, one died in in-
fancy, two more, to the amateur genealogist's delight, considerately moved to
other towns, and the remainder were direct in line from James the first.
James the second, as he was sometimes called, on April 4, 1713, agreed to

28 Connecticut Gravestones

sell his share of his father's estate to his brother, William, for £31, yet the
Winthrop-Hamlin correspondence of May 2, 1713, suggests that the two
brothers were associated in making gravestones. It appears likely, therefore,
that James had decided to work for William, that is until an influential and
subtle force by the name of Abigail Bevin made him change his mind. A few
weeks after he married her, twenty-two-year-old James Stanclift decided to
go in business for himself, because he then (June 18, 1714) obtained from
William a small part of the original Stanclift quarry with its "wood timber
stones mines and minerals," as well as a homelot abutting easterly on some
common land, which, incidentally, later became the Chatham burial ground.
A letter written on April 16, 1715, shows that James was on his own when he
made some step-stones for John Winthrop of New London - and thereby
hangs a footnote. For these stones Hamlin advanced the money, which
Winthrop failed to repay, at least until he had received a caustic dunning let-
ter. "I could not have thought," Hamlin wrote, "A Gentleman of your honor
and Ability woold have served me such a little trick as to keep back my Just
due that I payd down for you A year and halfe Ago & Desired no Recom-
pence of you for my grate trouble I had In the procuring and sending [the
stones] to you. . . S^ I expect the 7 " by the first operertunity you have becaus
I nede my money." Winthrop took his time, but finally paid for the stones the
following August.

The estate of John Tobee (Middletown, 1728) paid "To James Stantliff for
Grave Stones . . . £2-4-0," but as these stones cannot now be found it is impos-
sible to describe his early style. He received £7-5-0 from the estate of Peter
Pearson (Lyme, 1750), part of which was very probably for a gravestone, be-
cause the Pearson stone (Fig. 9), except for wording, happens to be a dupli-
cate of the stone for James's daughter, Sarah Stanclift (Fig. 10), who died in
East Middletown in 1748. These two stones resemble William's stones in
general design, but the inscriptions show James using capital letters only at
the beginning of words, and even then haphazardly. Moreover, the multi-
foliate rose which had been used long before as the symbol of paradise, and
which William usually took such pains to carve, became in James's hands
something more nearly resembling an uninspiring cartwheel. But it would be
hazardous to lay down any final rules for differentiating the styles of the two

The Stanclift Family

I >

.'"■ lie? the ,
och' of M^^

fe' ;''T*\

■n

^ \r pear ion Vv=n0,

■arted this life

^ obcrA' 1 i"CD in

^rhe 04 \ 'car of his Atie I

y«'ii.?!

Fig. 9 Peter Pearson 1750. Peck Burying Ground, Lyme.

Lie fTi' f
/BoclvoFiSar
p>' Daughter dF ^'-^
IcTme^ancr Abigail S^ai^
hift i\^ho Departed this
i life luiK- the 12 T~-.ii^
, r\,e;ed 2,-^ \ ears

i'^^ou are but cKiR:

Fig. 10 Sarah Stanclift 1748. Portland.

Connecticut Gravestones

vv ilip bot-f

r
.♦>■

lepi.embei* >

"> r/^vt

Wit"

^ A^e-ir- oi «h»

Fig. 11 Thomas Giddings 1749. Joshuatown Burying Ground, Lyme.

brothers, especially since an occasional stone was carved with William's capi-
tal letters and James's flat rosettes (one in Newington), suggesting that either
the two men greatly influenced one another, or were more closely associated
than the records indicate.^

Three signed receipts for money paid for gravestones in the Thomas and
Sarah Giddings estates-' (Lyme, 1749 and 1755) reveal that James was
making gravestones well beyond middle age. However, the lettering on the
stone for Thomas Giddings (1754) (Fig. 11) is indistinguishable from that
used by Thomas Johnson, one of the best Connecticut stone engravers of
colonial times. Sometime before 1761, James Stanclift and Gideon Hale had
joined with various members of the Johnson family to form a "quarry
company," which eventually sold out to Nathaniel Shaler and Joel Hall about
1788. Inasmuch as James Stanclift was paid for the Giddings stone, a stone
which shows many of Thomas Johnson's characteristics, it appears that
Stanclift's individuality as a stonecutter was lost after he joined the company,
perhaps sometime in the 1750s. After his death at the age of eighty, his inven-
tory listed "Part of an old Gold Neck Lace . . . Quarry Stones. . [and] . . one

The Stanclift Family 31

Slate Stone," showing that despite many occupational hazards he was actively
engaged until the end. He was survived by his wife, many daughters, and two
sons, Comfort and James. This James, sometimes called "James ye 3rd," was
still better known as "James of Chatham." He is also said to have made
gravestones, and although his name appears fairly frequently in Middletown
estates, so far no stones have been found which can definitely be attributed
to him.

James Stanclift (1712 - 1785)

As mentioned before, there were many James Stanclifts living in the
eighteenth century, and just to make it hard, the one most commonly known
as "James Stanclift, Junior" was actually the son of William. Though little
was said about this James, he has been the easiest to trace because his
whereabouts from time to time may be easily determined merely by noting
locations and dates of his distinctive style of gravestone. He had more
originality and imagination than his uncle, James the second.

Anyone with more than a cursory interest in colonial gravestones of
Hartford County must have had his curiosity aroused by an unusual type of
stone in the old Wintonbury (Bloomfield) and Simsbury graveyards [also one
in Granby, two or three in Farmington, four or five in North Canton (or West
Simsbury), and at least one in North Hartford]. Except in size and wording,
most of these stones are duplicates of one another, yet they must have caught
the public fancy at one time because they are fairly common. The most strik-
ing feature of these stones is the bizarre border design, so bizarre as to sug-
gest a series of kidneys joined together with a rope, but which unquestionably
was intended to represent fruit or flowers growing on a vine (Figs. 12 and
13). Early New England stonecutters, particularly in Massachusetts, usually
filled their borders with various figures, such as pomegranates, figs, ears of
corn, hearts, or birds, all symbolic of the soul or of the promised land, so the
vines on these particular stones were probably meant as symbols of the soul
reaching upward toward eternal light. Besides the unusual borders, the skulls
are distinctive, too, with their deep, straight, wide and toothless mouths, trun-
cated noses, broad foreheads, and their corrugated crowns balanced
precariously on their tops. The stiff, angular appendages, looped back like

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 12 Pelatiah Mills Esq. 1762. Bloomfield.

window drapes, are supposed to represent wings of graceful angels. In con-
trast to the borders, which appear to have been cut from a stencil because
they are almost symmetrically perfect, the lettering is uneven, and there is
hardly a stone that does not have an error, frequently in the inscription, more
often in the verses of which this artist was so fond. Even on his few master-
pieces, with their three- or four-stanza poems, errors in lettering stand out
conspicuously (Fig. 13).

All of these stones as well as their corresponding probate papers were
searched for the name of this unusual stonecutter, but only the estate of
Pelatiah Mills, Esquire (Fig. 12), yielded the desired information. One of the
administrators of this estate "paid to James Sancliff for tomb-Stones for
father and grandfather. . . £5-10-0." This was somewhat of a surprise inas-
much as neither this type of border nor anything like it is to be found in the
Middletown area where the Stanclifts lived. There is, however, one stone for
"Elizabeth Wedo of Mr David Latimor" (East Middletown, 1754) (Fig. 14),
now broken and shaled, which shows the same odd skull and wings, and,
therefore, may safely be attributed to James Stanclift "Junior," particularly

The Stanclift Family

since it also shows his characteristic blunders in lettering. He did not
develop his distinctive border until after he had arrived in Simsbury, because
one of his earliest stones there (Joseph Tuller, 1756) (Fig. 15) shows his final
design gradually evolving in the finial. A similar stone is in West Simsbury
(Canton) and six or seven in Canton, one with crossbones.

1 *

o' Vs,_^^Ke 1wn.. '_;%m "^Hi^" "^^fpK '. -
'? holloa N'-1t^;r-=S%tl5epAr^fKtiraC2,

^hT\n htn C^mtsto C^W him henc

nrt"- ^

fc^ .|The \\'ido morns -lhe ChiklrtnU'^

' " "' u^ ^\\ Txi^vUi Fern. ■•

Fig. 13 Sargt. John Hubbert 1760. Bloomfield.

Connecticut Gravestones

Bates's Simsbury records show that this James Stanclift had left East Mid-
dletown sometime between 1756 and 1759; but he did not remain in
Simsbury very long for neither his name nor style of gravestone can be found
there after 1764.

It was still another surprise, on a subsequent gravestone hunt, to find this
type of stone in the Woodbury-New Milford region, where it is also very com-
mon. There is one such stone in Stratford; and despite stiff competition from
such excellent stonecutters as Thomas Gold and Nathaniel(?) Lamson,
Stanclift appears to have been the most popular stonecutter of Newtown.
His own gravestone (Fig. 16) is in South Britain, and the records of that town
reveal that he had arrived there sometime before September, 1764.

fee a/7 Y^^aroFj

Fig. 14 Eliz[a]beth Latimore 1754. Portland.

The Stanclift Family

The one disconcerting fact that had to be explained was that James
StancHft's gravestone was cut in the style which he himself had created and
made so popular. Could he, like Josiah Manning of Windham, have cut his
own gravestone before he died? This idea had to be given up, because
throughout the Southbury-Newtown area this style of gravestone continues
well into the 1790s, and he could hardly have left so many uninscribed stones
in his estate. There is considerable suggestive evidence that stones of this
style bearing dates after 1785 were made by his son, still another James
Stanclift, who was born in East Middletown in 1756. Even though they
closely follow the style of the Simsbury stones, these late stones appear on
close examination to have been cut by a less certain hand. The borders are
not quite so regular, the lettering is frequently more shallow, the noses are a
little broader, and the wings are not so angular. There are unusual Stanclift
stones in Bloomfield for Solomon Burr (1773) and John Burr (1769) but noth-
ing in probate concerning them.

^^s^pn fon fdWfYf

->x.

Fig. 15 Joseph TuIIer 1756. Simsbury.

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 16 James Stanclift [Jr.] 1785. South Britain.

Hard luck seemed to pursue James Stanclift "Junior" throughout life. Al-
though he belonged to a well-established family of stonecutters, he was prob-
ably obliged to leave his native town because of some tough competition
from the Johnsons and other stone engravers whose names are as yet un-
known. Stanclift was not much of a speller, yet he worked very hard in
Simsbury, and the very intensity of his drive compelled him to make errors in
simple words which he certainly knew how to spell. He must have spent days
and days working on some stones and almost always with the same result -
an exasperating error which he later tried to correct as best he could. Al-
though he made gravestones for most of the important families in Simsbury,
he apparently was not financially successful, for he owned no land, and his
only business transactions that have so far come to light (aside from that in
the Mills estate) are records of his debts, one to Isaac Barber for £4-16-2,
dated 1762. Probably having heard the rumor that the inhabitants of South-
bury were "very numerus and welthy," he went there with his thirteen
children, only to encounter a series of real tragedies. His eldest son, George,
who also made gravestones, enlisted in the army on August 15, and died in

The Stanclift Family 37

New York on September 1, 1776. A second son, Thomas, enlisted the same
day, and died on September 18, according to his now broken and disintegrat-
ing gravestone, "in the service of his country." Another son, WiUiam just
turned sixteen, enlisted in May, 1777, was captured within a month, and was
dead before 1779. James himself died December 27, 1785, in his seventy-
fourth year. He was survived by his second wife, Mary (Lewis), most of his
daughters, and a son, James, who also marched off to war with his older
brothers, but who returned to South Britain to carry on the family tradition at
least until the turn of the nineteenth century.

NOTES

1. This Gibbs has not as yet been definitely identified. He may have engraved the stones on
the sides of this tomb. This lettering is somewhat similar to the lettering on the grave-
stones for William Allen (1701), Mary Allen (1703), Kathern Gibbs (1660), and the
Reverend Ephraim Huit (1644). There is a similar stone in Springfield dated 1664. This
lettering resembles George Griswold's lettering in many ways, yet differs from it in some
particulars, notably the capital H's and Y's. The stone for Kathern Gibbs has capital A's
with canopies somewhat similar to those cut by James StancHft, but the texture of this stone
shows that it did not originate in the Stanclift quarries. In a previous article the Huit stone
was tentatively and perhaps mistakenly attributed to Griswold. (Caulfield note)

2. Dr. Caulfield apparently intended to rewrite this paragraph. His annotations are confusing
but include the following. "James Stanclift & Quarry company - mentioned in Thomas
Johnson will dated Dec. 1774. James the second died 1772. James of Chatham." In dis-
cussing the lettering on the stones he corrects "Thomas Johnson" to "the Thomas Johnsons"
and repeats that James of Chatham is the James Stanclift who owned the quarry and
worked with the Johnsons rather than James II as indicated in the original paragraph.
James of Chatham is James Stanclift III, the son of James II.

John Gill was the brother of Ebenezer Gill who was paid for the gravestones for Jonathan
Smith (Wethersfield, 1728), and Ebenezer's name also appears among the creditors of the
estate of Joseph Cole (Rocky Hill, 1733). These gravestones, however, so closely resemble
William Stanclift's stones that one is obliged to conclude either that both men made stones
which are now indistinguishable or that Gill was acting merely as William's agent. There is
nothing in the probate papers to indicate that the Gills carved gravestones. (Caulfield
note)

3. Mrs. Sherry Stancliff of Cincinnati, Ohio, has worked intensively on the genealogy and
gravestones of the Stanclift family in recent years. A short synopsis of her work on James
Stanclift I appeared in Markers IV, pp. 154-157. This article notes that Mrs. Stancliff has
found "about 60 stones cut by James StancHft." Her article includes a map of the locations
where his stones are found, a discussion of his style, genealogical information and a diary

Connecticut Gravestones

entry verifying James Stanclift I as the carver of the Rebecca Minor 1702 stone in the We-
quetequock burying ground in Stonington.

However, most of Mrs. StanclifPs work is as yet unpublished. In letters to J. A. Slater
she has estabUshed James Stcuiclift III (son of James II) definitely as a carver and at-
tributed the Thomas and Saiah Giddings stones, mentioned by Dr. Caulfield, to him. She
indicates that Dr. Caulfield seemed to have trouble identifying the work of Thomas
Johnson 11 (Deacon Thomas--see Connecticut Gravestones V). She notes that this Thomas
Johnson purchased Comfort St£inclift's portion of the Stanclift quarry in 1768 and was a
business pcU"tner and neighbor of James Stanclift III. She further notes Dr. Caulfield's
statement that Stanclift was paid in 1755 for stones bearing Johnson lettering. This
reference is probably to the Giddings stones. Mrs. Stancliff states that the man who let-
tered the Giddings stones was still making gravestones nine years after Thomas Johnson
IPs death and six years before the death of James Stanclift III.

Scholars interested in the Stanclifts should realize that Comfort Stanclift was also a
carver cuid that Mrs. Stancliff has computer listings of the location, date and attributions of
the great majority of the extant Stanclift stones.

.:^

Fig. 1 Abiel Grant 1762. Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.
Carved by Ebenezer Drake. Photograph by Farbers.

Ebenezer Drake 39

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES III
Ebenezer Drake (1739 - 1803)

In one respect Ebenezer Drake was the most interesting of all Connecticut
stone engravers. Whenever one of these colonial craftsmen made a design
that pleased his fancy he usually continued to use that design, frequently with
minor variations, for long periods if not throughout the remainder of his ac-
tive life. But not Ebenezer Drake. Constantly critical of his own handiwork,
he so frequently and drastically altered his style that, without convincing col-
lateral evidence, it would be difficult to believe that so many different types
of gravestones were made by the same man. Behind this self-criticism was a
volatile artistic temperament, and though gravestones even in his time were
not usually considered as the proper medium for bold experiments, Drake
enjoyed the satisfaction of having his adventurous and imaginative creations
generally accepted. For descriptive purposes his stones may be roughly
separated into groups, although the gradual evolution of certain characteris-
tics may be easily traced from stone to stone.

The earliest stone that can be definitely attributed to Drake is the one in
South Windsor for Abiel Grant, cabinet-maker, who died in 1762 (Fig. 1).
The adminstrators of this estate entered in their accounts: "To Cash p"
Eben'^ Drake for Tomb Stones. . . £2-10-0." The feature of this stone that
first attracts the eye is the moon-like face which is remarkably expressive for
having been made with so few lines, all of them drawn with a compass. Many
stonecutters used the compass in designing gravestones, but few with more
apparent satisfaction than Ebenezer Drake in his early days. Although the
face (or skull) on Grant's stone is not a perfect circle, it is very close to one,
and the eyes and brows are certainly arcs of a circle. Moreover, the compass
had to be moved only a very small distance to make another arc for the
turned-up mouth.

There are many "compass" stones similar to Grant's in Windsor and South
Windsor, a few of them bearing dates in the 1750s. Despite the dates, all of
these stones were probably carved in the 1760s because, from the standpoint
of both design and lettering, the earliest stone made by Drake was, I believe,

Connecticut Gravestones

that for Sarah Stedman, dated 1762 (Fig. 2).^ More than any other of his
stones, this bears the earmarks of an inexperienced novice. Drake was about
twenty-three years old when it was made. The mouths and noses on many of
these early stones appear as straight lines instead of arcs, and the borders
vary considerably, yet "compass" eyes and brows are obvious on all (Fig. 3).
As time went on, Drake's faces became more shapely, although he continued
to make good use of his compass until about 1775. When he made any finial
design at all on his early stones he used a four-leaved clover, probably be-
cause that was easier to make with a compass than a multifoliate rose. Also,
on his early stones he usually imitated another stonecutter who was popular
in East Windsor in the 1760s by cutting five misplaced teeth below each
chin.^

4-..

Fig. 2 Sarah Stedman 1762. Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.
Photograph by Farbers.

Ebenezer Drake

Fig. 3 Tryphena Grant 1764. Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.

If Sarah Stedman's gravestone was the first to be made by Drake, it is in-
teresting to note the evolution in his lettering from this crude beginning. On
this early stone the a's in "Sarah" are backward but elsewhere-' they are nor-
mal; and there are also noticeable deviations in the letters f, g, o, and y.
Within a very short time, however, there was a striking improvement in his
lettering so that by 1770 it was very good, although the hypercritical may still
find an occasional error in spelling or in spacing as late as the 1790s. After
1770, for some peculiar reason, Drake always carved the word who in italics.

The drape-like wings on Abiel Grant's stone reveal another feature that is
helpful in distinguishing Ebenezer's stones. From these simple drapes he
went on to wavy lines and intricate ornamentation as he became more and
more skillful with his chisel. Indeed, he loved to display this extraordinary
skill so much that it is difficult to find one of his stones without numerous
wavy lines or elaborate decorations (Fig. 4). From the borders alone, there-
fore, it is safe to attribute to Drake the double "froglet" stone for the Loomis
boys, Giles and Joel (Fig. 5), who "did" in South Windsor, one in 1751 and
the other in 1765.

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 4 Ame Bissell 1766. Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.

EJ^^IV: J•J^K;;^r;-'"y|"

J^ i^

'S^]
C '/

rf^ (<(/

Fig. 5 Giles and Joel Lomis 1751, 1765.
Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor

Ebenezer Drake 43

It apparently took Drake a few years before he created a border to his
hking. Some of his early stones have no borders or some sort of vine growing
upside down. Then, after experimenting with various designs, he developed a
border with a distinct geometric appearance which he obviously admired
greatly for he used it on so many of his stones. These might be called his
"geometric border" stones. The simplest form of this design, seen on the
Abiel Grant stone (Fig. 1), consists essentially of a cHmbing vine with a stalk,
which in view of Drake's love of curves, is strangely unreal and angular.
Each large space was filled with a broad double leaf of a formal, unnatural
appearance. By varying the number of double leaves, decorating each with a
short curved line, and by avoiding empty spaces Drake was able to vary the
complexity of these borders, yet they all have the appearance of geometric
fretwork rather than that of graceful growing vines. The simplified form ap-
pears on most of the stones made in the 1760s, and reaches its most complex
appearance in the 1770s (Fig. 6). During the 1780s Drake temporarily
neglected this motif but returned to it in the 1790s. On all of these
"geometric border" stones he carved a pinwheel in the finial. Occasionally he
made a double border and a double pinwheel.

Many of Drake's faces are also notable for the pains he took in making
life-like eyes. Since heads on gravestones were originally intended as skulls,
this attempt to make fetching eyes was carrying things a little far. Neverthe-
less, Drake seemed to take great pride in his ability to make such eyes. One
of the earliest and best examples is the face on the stone for Kezia Elsworth
(Windsor, 1762), a stone which is otherwise true to type for that period, in-
cluding the winsome double chin. Thereafter, even on very small stones with
little crude faces, Drake seldom failed to cut at least a few marks to repre-
sent both inner and outer canthi at the juncture of the lids.

It was essentially this uninhibited desire to carve expressive eyes and ex-
travagant ornamentation that led Drake to design some of the most ludicrous
gravestones in all New England. After chipping away stone from above and
below the eyes, he was left with large hideous noses and pouting mouths.
Sometimes, as on the stone for Ruth Mather (Windsor, 1791) (Fig. 7), he
spent many days making the extraordinarily elaborate wings and crown; but
at other times, as on the stone for John Allyn (Windsor, 1796) (Fig. 8), he

Connecticut Gravestones

made the same scare-crow face but with simple, undecorated wings. On a
great many other stones, such as that for John Bhss (South Windsor, 1780)
(Fig. 9), Drake carved a thick rope-like border to frame the face, which only
made it still more hideous. By this time his imagination was on the loose and
he didn't know where to stop. But on all of these "monkey" stones he carved
an incongruous dimple in the chin, which was apparently his trade-mark, for
no other stonecutter added this extra-gentle touch.

'j'^:^/]^ John \ /yi
flion /vho /^X,

'slJ r

i . /

Fig. 6 Deacon John Willson 1774. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.

Cbenezer Drake

,-^

PM/lh,D;iu;^p!
4 ihcr.DiVi.D'j

Fig. 7 Ruth Mather 1791. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.

n!-' /'.111,. \u-,\] ^m

Fig. 8 Ens". John Allyn 1796. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.

Connecticut Gravestones

Inasmuch as Drake changed his style so frequently, it is probably safe to
attribute to him the "mustache" stones which are commonly found in the
same graveyards where his other stones prevail. If he did not make these
stones, at least they show his influence to a marked degree.'' An unusual ex-
ample of this type is the stone for Deacon Matthew Rockwell (South
Windsor, 1782) with a communion service prominently displayed. There is a
similar stone in Tolland. Drake continued to assert his artistic independence
until about 1800 when, his age having crept up on him, he finally succumbed
to the more conservative gravestone fashion of the day with its common
willow-and-urn design.

1^5 rl '^r.T/f.-^L- ij::r/fi

Fig. 9 John Bliss 1780. Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.

Ebenezer Drake 47

John Keith's manuscript account book in the Connecticut Historical
Society's collection mentions an Ebenezer Drake living "w^ Erastus Woolcott
att [East] Windsor" in June, 1754, an Ebenezer Drake "of Wintonbury" in
1757, and an Ebenezer Drake "of Torrington" in 1759. The first of these was
unquestionably the stonecutter, because Windsor estates frequently disclose
that the gravestones were quarried east of the river. Thus, the estate of
Amos Filley (Windsor, 1785) paid Ebenezer Drake not only for the grave-
stones but also "for ferryages when sd Stones were brought over." According
to Gay's history of the Drake family, this Ebenezer was born June 12, 1739,
the son of Deacon Nathaniel and Elizabeth (Warner) Drake of East Windsor
(Wapping). He married Martha Stedman in February, 1762. He is thought
to have died in Paris, New York, soon after he moved there about 1803. So
far, other sources have yielded little additional information.

Except that Ebenezer Drake sold a small part of Stony Hill to Frederick
Mills in 1786, no records of his owning any quarry have been found. Two of
his brothers, however, appear to have been stonecutters. On August 1, 1766,
Ebenezer Grant of East Windsor paid Silas Drake:

By Hewing 83 feet Stone @ 1/ 4/3/0
By 4 Days work laying d° @ 4/ 0/16/0

And Nathaniel Drake, Jr., who is known to have owned a quarry, was paid:

Jan 28 1768 by 83 foot Stone at y^ Hill May 1766 @ 6^ 2/1/6

May 19 1769 by 2 load Ruff Stone at y^ Hill 1/0/0

Ebenezer's gravestones came from at least three quarries. Most of them
were made from a coarse brick-red sandstone which was quarried in Wap-
ping, some originated in the Windsor quarries, and many others of a darker,
smooth, fine-grained stone appeared to have come from the East Long-
meadow quarries.

A few disturbing facts about the Drake gravestones remain to be ex-
plained. The estate of Ebenezer Bliss (East Windsor, 1776) disbursed:

To Cash pd Silas Drake for Tomb Stones 2/8/0

For fetching home sd Stones &c 0/6/0

48 Connecticut Gravestones

Also, the estate of Joshua Pitkin (East Hartford, 1775) "Paid to Elisha Stanly
for Grave Stones. . . 1/13/0." The Bliss and Pitkin gravestones are indistin-
guishable from others made by Ebenezer Drake. It seems likely, therefore,
that Silas either acted as Ebenezer's agent or assisted him in making grave-
stones. Silas's name is also mentioned in the John Bliss estate (East
Windsor, 1780), but there is no other evidence that he was in the gravestone
business by himself.^ Elisha Stanley lived in East Hartford, where he owned
a shop and a sawmill. It is difficult to believe that he made the Pitkin graves-
tone, for not only was the amount of money insufficient but also his probate
papers fail to show any evidence that he was in the gravestone business.^

Ebenezer Drake was an astonishingly successful stone engraver. Begin-
ning with a few stones crudely lettered and designed he became within ten or
fifteen years the most popular stonecutter in Hartford County. At least one-
half of all gravestones before 1800 in the South Windsor, Windsor, Bloom-
field, and Wapping graveyards were made by him; they are common in towns
nearby; and an occasional stone is to be seen in more distant towns such as
Norfolk, Middletown, Colchester, and Old Lyme. In Essex there are many of
his stones for various members of the Hayden family. It is difficult to under-
stand such popularity. Today we should much prefer Drake's simple primi-
tives but in his time fantastic nightmares were the rage. It all goes to prove
that fashions in hats, automobiles or tombstones are beyond the ken of mor-
tal man.

NOTES

1. However, there is a triple stone in the Palisados Burying Ground (Windsor) for Elijah Hol-
comb, and two other (unnamed) infants, dated 1761. This stone is similar to, and even
more simple than, the Sarah Stedman stone and has at least equal claim to being Drcike's
earliest stone.

2. Gershom Bartlett

3. On the same stone.

4. Caulfield's own copy has written in the words "Lathrop?" and "substitute." Stones such as
that in Figure 8 (Connecticut Gravestones XV) are now attributed to Thatcher Lathrop and
similar ones also to his son Luther Lathrop.

Ebenezer Drake 49

5. It can be seen that Dr. Caulfield certainly felt that Ebenezer Drake was the carver of all of
the "Drake type" stones. In addition to his note that Silas Drake was paid for gravestones
in one probate record and that his name appeared in another estate for ein amount consis-
tent with payment for gravestones, Kevin Sweeney (letter to J. Slater) states that he has
seen a third payment to Silas Drake. Dr. Caulfield also notes that Nathaniel Drake, Jr.,
owned a quarry, and Sweeney (letter above) states that Nathaniel called himself a "stone
engraver."

The great variety of stones involved leaves the question of whether or not Ebenezer
Drake carved all of the stone types attributed to him - an open one. What is needed is a
careful quantitative study to evaluate this. Dr. Caulfield's evidence that Ebenezer at least
carved all the major types attributed to him is stronger than his article indicates, for his
manuscript notes contain probate evidence of payment to Ebenezer Drake for a number of
additional stones plus several additional probate payments consistent with gravestone costs.

Although Dr. Caulfield's text lists only probate records for the Abiel Grant (1762)
(Fig. 1) and Amos Filley (1785) stones, his manuscript notes contain probate evidence from
several additional estates as follows:

1. Matthew Allyn 1769 Windsor

"To Ebenezer Drake for Grave Stones 1-15-0"

2. Nathaniel Hubbard 1773 Windsor (stone in Bloomfield)

"To Eben"^ Drakes bill for Tomb Stones 5-10-0"

3. Elijah Drake 1783 Bloomfield

"to Eben Drake for a pr of Grave Stones 1-10-90"

4. Jerijah Barber 1792 Windsor

"May 15 1793 paid Ebenezer Drake for pr grave stones 4-2-6"

"May 11, 1793 Paid Ebenezer Drake for fetching grave Stones 0-3-0"

5. Naomi Filley 1795 Windsor

"December paid Ebenezer Drake for the Grave stones 2-10-0"

6. John Allyn 17% Windsor (Fig. 8)

"Due from the estate to Eben Drake for Tomb Stones 3-04-0"

7. Orson Moore 1800 Windsor

"Paid to Ebenezer Drake for Grave Stones $15.00"

In addition, the Caulfield manuscript lists Ebenezer Drake as being paid in the follow-
ing estates, although gravestones are not specifically mentioned.

1. Joshua Loomis 1765 S. Windsor

2. Roger Wolcott 1767 Windsor

"Thomas Johnson for table stone"; "grave stone of Ebenezer Drake 4"

3. Joseph Wood 1771 Windsor

Ebenezer Drake adminstrator

4. Joseph Egleston 1774 S.Windsor 0-13-0

5. John WUson 1774 Windsor Paid 1-15-0 (Fig. 6)

6. Elizabeth Cadwell 1776 Farmington 3-5-0

7. Jerusha Whiting 1776 Hartford 1-16-0

8. William Thrall 1783 Windsor 4-10-0

(double stone ~ Eunice)

9. Mary Roberts 1791 Windsor

To a Journey after the tombstones 0-8-0
To Ebenezer Drake 3-10-0

6. Elisha Stanley's own gravestone in East Hartford is a typical Drcike stone.

Connecticut Gravestones

^\o

lhcU()cly(){' iMaiy

V-

. \i\

Fig. 1 Mary Chapman 1729. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.
Photograph by James Slater.

ny 6 year of |

Fig. 2 John Alger [Jr.] 1735. Duck River Burying Ground, Old Lyme.

The Glastonbury Lady 51

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES IV
"The Glastonbury Lady"

One of the pleasures of gravestone hunting in Connecticut is that source
material is seemingly inexhaustible and therefore the hunter's interest sel-
dom wanes. Regardless of the number of stones he may learn to identify
there will still remain many more that defy detection and only stimulate his
curiosity. Some of these unidentified stones may be separated into special
groups, and although the stones of any one group may be superficially dis-
similar they sometimes have enough of the same characteristics in shape,
design or lettering to make it certain that they were made by the same man.
One such group of stones is the subject of this paper. Despite the fact that
the artist still remains aggravatingly elusive, we have long regarded him as a
very dear friend whom we have affectionately, though perhaps incongruously,
nicknamed "The Glastonbury Lady." He acquired this name because he was
the most popular stonecutter in Glastonbury in the 1730s, many of his best
stones were made for women, and the hair arrangement on his faces, even on
stones for men, usually has a distinctly feminine appearance.

This man made three different types of gravestones, all of them having a
skillfully-cut, curving upper edge. Occasionally one finds artistic scrolls, and
small rounded protuberances which must have been difficult to complete, in-
asmuch as an accidental blow with a heavy hammer would have been enough
to break them off. This delicately carved edge is very well shown on the un-
adorned stones, those without faces or skulls, such as the stone for Mary
Chapman, who died in Windsor in 1729 (Fig. 1). Stones of this type seldom
have a border.

A second type of gravestone, much more rare than the previous type,
shows very crude skull designs similar to those seen on early William
Stanclift stones. These skulls are usually simple circles with triangular noses
and eyes, prominent teeth, and a few straggling hairs for wings (Fig. 2). The
upper edges, though gracefully curved, generally lack both the scrolls and
rounded protuberances. Since the artist was certainly capable of much better
work, one might suppose that this was his cheapest type of gravestone, good

Connecticut Gravestones

enough only for children, except that a stone of this type marks the grave of
Captain Samuel Sedgwick (Fig. 3), who died in West Hartford in 1735.

The third and most interesting type shows that at his best this stonecutter
was indeed a skillful artist. At the time of his greatest popularity (ca. 1720-
1740) there were very few men in Connecticut who could compare with him
in both imagination and craftsmanship. In contrast to stones of the second
type, the stones for Robert MacCleave in Portland (Fig. 4), Martha Smith in
Wethersfield (Fig. 5) and Feles Pelet in Glastonbury (Fig. 6), all good ex-
amples of his work, must have taken considerable time and care to cut. This
third type shows three-dimensional sculpturing, which was something new in
central Connecticut that early in the eighteenth century. The resulting faces
with their long straight noses, bulging cheeks, and pouting mouths, frequently
expressing various emotions, are characteristic, as are the ornate neck-pieces
and geometric borders. The borders were made simply by cutting a series of
alternating triangles and carving a long serpentine line in the remaining
elevated stone (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3 Captain Samuell Sedgwick 1735. West Hartford.

The Glastonbury Lady

Because of such marked variation one may rightfully ask for the evidence
that these three different types of gravestones were made by the same man.
Besides the previously mentioned curving upper edge the answer is in the let-
tering. It is true that a few other stonecutters had somewhat similar
peculiarities, such as a mixture of small and capital letters (as in DYed, hiS
and ThomaS), occasional misspelled words (as FeleS for Phyllis or Capten
for Captain) and hooked numeral I's at the beginning of a date. On a good
many stones guide lines are still visible, and for some peculiar reason the
words "Who" and "Age" almost always begin with capitals. In addition to
these peculiarities, "The Glastonbury Lady" had two which were very much
his own " an ampersand (&) with its tail protruding upward an unusual dis-
tance, and a small "a" with a prominent bulge in front. This pot-bellied "a"
occurs on practically every one of his stones, and is his most important iden-
tifying characteristic, for it was used apparently by no one else. Additional
evidence that one man made at least two of the three types here described
may be seen in Wethersfield, where the grave of Abigail Kilborn is marked
by a headstone of type III and a footstone of type II (Fig. 7).^

no llkrr- y J j^E^nl

rh^ -^^^f-'-v/ccir .^

■'y.

Fig. 4 Robert MacCleave 1730. Portland.

Connecticut Gravestones

These stones are most commonly found east of the river, particularly in
Glastonbury and in Old Lyme, although there are a few in many of the river
towns below West Springfield and in most of the shore towns between New
London and New Haven. From this geographic distribution as well as from
the texture of the stones it may safely be assumed that this artist lived near
the East Middletown (Portland) quarries. In the absence of any definite
records, however, one can only speculate on his identity, although a number
of possibilities readily come to mind. The stones for John and Love Mack
(1734 and 1735), in an old neglected graveyard on Blood Street in Lyme,
were definitely made by this elusive person, and John's estate paid "John Mer-
vin for Grave Stons. . . 01-19-06." Very likely this refers to the John Marvin
who died in Lyme about 1741, although his probate papers fail to reveal any-
thing connected with stonecutting. So far as is known, he never lived near
Middletown, nor is it known that he was paid for any other stone. He, there-
fore, was probably acting merely as an agent.

The Sf' vearof'^yvi-t'

Fig. 5 Martha Smith 1731. Wethersfield.

The Glastonbury Lady

0r^M-TKomaS Pelf ^- 1

Fig. 6 Feles Pelet 1730/31. Green Burying Ground, Glastonbury.

Fig. 7 Abigail Kilborn 1739. Footstone. Wethersfield.

56 Connecticut Gravestones

Another possibility is the second James Standift (1692-1772). He is
known to have made gravestones in the 1720s, and the similarity of type II
stones to those made by William Stanclift could thus be easily explained.
The flat rosettes in the finials on Love Mack's stone in Lyme, and on the
stone for Captain John Holmes (1734) in East Haddam, are similar to those
made by this James Stanclift. In addition, the faces on some of the later
stones made by James Stanclift "Junior" (William's son) appear to have been
copied from "Glastonbury Lady" stones. But there is one serious objection to
any of the Stanclifts as possibilities. The only stones which may be credited
to them have very little else in common with the stones under consideration.

Also to be considered is Daniel Brewer, who was born in Glastonbury in
1699, and who later moved to East Middletown, where he bought and sold
lots of land and worked in the quarry business with the Stanclifts. Brewer
sold gravestones to Joshua Hempstead in 1736, and it so happens that there
is a typical "Glastonbury Lady" stone in New London, made about 1736
(dated 1735). Also, Richard Goodale, Brewer's father-in-law, has a typical
stone; and the little gravestone for David, son of Daniel and Elener Brewer,
while it does not have the classical fat "a," does have the unusual ampersand
and "Age" beginning with a capital. There the circumstantial evidence ends.
But "Glastonbury Lady" stones are seldom found dated later than 1741,
whereas Brewer was still in business at least until 1751 and 1752 when he
shipped ten pairs of gravestones to New London. His name occurs, usually in
connection with trivial matters, in various account books and in a few estates,
but there is nothing definite as yet to help identify his style. Until more posi-
tive information comes to light. Brewer remains only a possibility.

Since stonecutting was the most lucrative business in East Middletown at
that time, any one of a number of men could also have made these stones.
John Miller, for example, would fit the bill because the Millers made grave-
stones. He died in 1745, owning "a Ston orger. . . Iron weges to coot Ston"
and a few other tools commonly used in the business. And then there was
John Edwards, about whom little is known except that he lived in East Mid-
dletown and sold gravestones to Joshua Hempstead. There are other pos-
sibilities but we leave, with regret, to someone else all the fun of definitely
identifying "The Glastonbury Lady."^

The Glastonbury Lady 57

NOTES

1. On rare occasions one may find stones such as those for Joseph and Mary Maken (1725)
and Thankful Porter (1741) in East Hartford with designs by Johnson and lettering by "The
Glastonbury Lady," as though he had occasionally bought uninscribed stones from his fel-
low stonecutter, just as Joshua Hempstead is known from his diary to have done. These
stones, however, are shaped more like ordinary gravestones of the period, and lack the
graceful scrolls. On the other hand, there are two stones in Wethersfield shaped like
"Glastonbury Lady" stones, but with lettering by Johnson. Here, then, is a little more
evidence that the old stonecutters occasionally traded with each other. (Caulfield note)

2. The identity of "The Glastonbury Lady" remains as elusive as it was when Dr. Caulfield dis-
cussed his work. However, due to the intensive work of Sherry Stancliff upon the Stanclift
carving family we now can feel confident that the Glastonbury Lady was closely associated
with the Stanclifts, if indeed he was not one of them. Mrs. Stancliff (letter to J. Slater)
notes that "The Glastonbury Lady" stones are almost always found where a number of
Stanclift stones are present and seldom anywhere else. Her work on the Stanclifts has in-
cluded study of the Glastonbury Lady stones as well. Dr. Caulfield mentioned the pos-
sibility of "The Glastonbury Lady" being James Stanclift IL The rosettes on some of "The
Glastonbury Lady" stones are almost identical with those used by James IL Furthermore,
James II stones, as they now can be attributed, suggest a surprisingly late starting date. On
the other hand, the lettering on documented James Stanclift II stones differs from that on
"The Glastonbury Lady" stones. The lettering of the latter appears to be definitive since, as
Dr. Caulfield points out, stones with designs by a Thomas Johnson show lettering by "The
Glastonbury Lady" and vice versa. (Dr. Caulfield did not indicate in his paper what two
Wethersfield stones were "shaped G.L. stones but with lettering by Johnson"; one of these
is the Richard Robbins 1738 stone.) It should also be recognized when considering the pos-
sible Stanclift relationship that the faces on Type II "The Glastonbury Lady" stones are very
reminiscent of some of the work of William Stanclift. Clearly the identity of "The Glaston-
bury Lady" lies in the tangled web of the Stanclifts and the Johnsons, a major challenge to
Connecticut gravestone scholarship.

Connecticut Gravestones

V-

0^ ''

HrjY: lycfli llir: bDrly
in fhr; ' 3P/'^yrv1^ .

jp^

. ..il

Fig. 1 Jacob White Jr. 1734. Cromwell.

The Thomas Johnsons 59

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES V
The Thomas Johnsons

It was inevitable that the excellent craftsmanship of early Massachusetts
stonecutters would sooner or later influence someone in Connecticut, al-
though it was not until the 1720s that this influence was discernible to any
great degree. Previous to 1720, and with few exceptions, Connecticut grave-
stones usually bore simple inscriptions and had little resemblance to the
beautifully carved skulls with wings on early Boston slates. This combination
of a skull with wings was, according to Mrs. Harriette M. Forbes, a very old
symbol of immortality; it was the equivalent of "Remember Death" or
"Memento Mori." It has sometimes been called "The Angel of Death" or,
more simply, the death's-head design. Its first common appearance in Con-
necticut was on a distinct group of especially well-made stones, and although
some of them are dated as early as 1687, they were all made, as will be ex-
plained later, between 1723 and 1736. These stones are frequently found in
nearly all river and shore towns, particularly in Middletown and Cromwell,
and they are fairly common in Windsor, too, which makes it likely that at one
time they were much more common in Hartford than they are at present.

The outstanding feature of these stones, particularly when compared with
other Connecticut gravestones of the period, is that they show the hand of a
master craftsman. From the stern cynical skulls with their gnashing teeth as
well as from the feathered wings, fig borders and careful lettering, one may
conclude that this artist was exceedingly proud of his work and wished each
stone to be considered as a finished product. The edges of his stones were
carefully chamfered, and even the backs were often made unusually smooth
and occasionally decorated with a border (unique among stonecutters).

There is now ample proof that these stones were made by Thomas
Johnson. In "a Compt of the Depts of the Estate of David Ensign late of
West Hartford deceased 1728" occurs "by Grave Stons to Tho Johnson . . .
£1-10-0"; and the estate of Jacob White, Jr., of Cromwell (1734) paid "To
Tho Johnson for Grave Stones . . . £1-8-0" (Fig. 1). Though gravestones were
not specifically mentioned, similar amounts were paid to Thomas Johnson

60 Connecticut Gravestones

from the estates of Robert Warner (Middletown, 1732) and Benoni Sage
(Berlin, 1734), both of whose graves are marked by death's-head stones. It is
known that Johnson made gravestones for Jehiel Hawley (Middletown, 1728)
and Samuel Stow (Middletown, 1735), but their stones cannot now be found.
There is, moreover, some circumstantial evidence that Johnson made these
death's-head designs. The gravestones in Middletown for Nathaniel (1711)
and Elizabeth (1690) White, who were his in-laws, and particularly the grave-
stone in Cromwell for Ann Ranney (1731), who was his sister, were carved
according to this style.

There were numerous Thomas Johnsons in Connecticut during the
eighteenth century, and this is an attempt to trace three generations of them
~ father, son and grandson. It is also an attempt to trace the evolution of
their gravestone designs, inasmuch as they set the standards for stone art
throughout most of Connecticut, not only while they lived but also for many
years thereafter.

Wise genealogists have usually steered clear of eighteenth-century
Johnsons in Middletown, for in proportion to population the name seems to
have been more common at that time than it is at present. Most of them
were descended from Isaac, who came from Roxbury about 1670 and whose
descendants settled in the southern part of the town (Farm Hill), later spread-
ing over into Haddam. It was not much fun to become hopelessly bogged
down in this genealogic quagmire only to learn that the Thomas Johnson who
made the death's-head stones did not belong to this branch of the family.
From data in the land, vital and probate records, and on his gravestone, it
can be established that he was born January 12, 1690, son of John and
Mehitable of New Haven. Thomas first appeared in Middletown records on
April 20, 1715, when Samuel Wilkocks sold "to Thomas Johnson of the
[town] & County of New Haven . . . mason . . . one half acre ... at a place
called the uper Housen." On January 2, 1718, he had nothing else to do but
marry Susannah White, with the intention of further confusing the Johnson
genealogy by starting another family in Middletown, although he was con-
siderate enough to settle in the northern end of the town in "The Upper
Houses" (Cromwell). From time to time he acquired considerable land
"north of Ferry River," but apparently he was not a speculator because most

The Thomas Johnsons 61

of this land was later sold to his sons at cost. John Warner, weaver and grave
digger of Cromwell, noted in his account book in 1730 that Thomas Johnson
was indebted to him "for carting 4 pair of Grave Stons . . . £00-03-00."

As soon as the inhabitants of Middletown fully realized that "The Rocks,"
and especially those on the east side of the river, were very valuable assets to
the town, a tax was levied on all stone shipped to other places, but despite
this tax, the stone trade continued to increase. Possibly the first large con-
tract to supply stone for the brownstone buildings which were to become so
popular in the nineteenth century was made in 1737 when Thomas Johnson
agreed to supply stone for the Thomas Hancock house in Boston [Mrs. J. S.
Bayne. History of Portland in History of Middlesex County, (New York, 1884,
516 et seq.)]. In this contract he was described as "Thomas Johnson . . . Stone
Cutter." But he was not just an ordinary stonecutter. He represented Mid-
dletown in the General Assembly during 1738, 1739, and again during 1744.
In 1738 he was chosen "Captain of the north company or train band in the
town of Middletown"; and he was Justice of the Peace from 1744 until he
died. His standing in the community was reflected in his titles. Usually he
was called "Captain Johnson," or after 1750, "Thomas Johnson, Esquire."

It is difficult to say when he first made gravestones. Some of his simplest
designs, those that were made without faces or skulls, but merely with
pinwheels in the finials, are found most frequently in the New Haven area;
and he was described in some New Haven records of 1713 as a mason when
he was only twenty-three years old. Both his father and his uncle, William,
who was also a mason, signed some documents with their marks, possibly in-
dicating that they could not write and, if so, they could hardly have taught
Thomas the gravestone trade, because the first requisite of a gravestone cut-
ter was the ability to make letters. Perhaps he was inspired by the beautiful
Boston slate stones^ which were being imported with increasing frequency
into New Haven at that time. On the other hand, there is some evidence that
his first stones were made after he went to Middletown. The death's-head
stone for Hannah Fiske in Haddam, dated 1723, appears to have been made
by him, yet it has backward capital N's and other characteristics of a novice.

Dates on gravestones are not the best criteria to use in tracing the develop-
ment of a stonecutter's style, because many stones were made long after their

Connecticut Gravestones

inscribed dates. After his name became famous, Johnson received orders to
make stones for many persons who had died in the seventeenth century, so
some of his stones must have been made from twenty to thirty years after
their inscribed dates. It is, therefore, better to describe his stones according
to their complexity. As has been said, the simplest stones were those without
designs, other than simple pinwheels in the finials. Then came the more orna-
mented stones with skulls and wings, as on the stone for Caleb Brainod, who
died in Middletown (Farm Hill Burying Ground) in 1726 (Fig. 2). Some-
times there was a chain-like design just above the inscription. From this
design apparently evolved the finished product with its decorated borders
and ornate crowns. It does not necessarily follow that the style evolved
strictly chronologically, for the design could easily have depended on the im-
portance of the deceased, cost of the stone, or even on Johnson's artistic
mood at the time the stone was made.

Fig. 2 Caleb Brainod 1726. Farm Hill Burying Ground, Middletown.

The Thomas Johnsons

S5t- HERS ^UETH CHr,,^,
■OF->-:" COtttPGE

CONECTICir

Fig. 3 Rev** Abrah [am] Pierson 1706/7. Clinton.

Even in their completed form, death's-head stones may still be separated
into groups. One group has coil borders, such as those on the stone for
Abraham Pierson, founder of Yale College, who died in 1707 (Fig. 3). This
stone is in Clinton, and nearby are four or five similar stones, one of them,
that of Gershom Palmer (1727) (Fig. 4), showing the transition to the second
group, those with fig borders. The earliest fig border stones were inscribed
with capital letters and these, in turn, were followed by the best stones, which
have small letters and are usually dated between 1730 and 1736. That most
of these designs were made by one man is pretty well proved by the many
graves that were marked by headstones with fig borders and footstones with
scroll borders, as on the graves of James Lord (Saybrook, 1730), Joseph
Tallcott (Wethersfield, 1732) (Fig. 5), Samuel Treat (Wethersfield, 1732),
and many others. The small, scroll border footstones were sometimes used
as headstones on children's graves.

Two stones in Cromwell that certainly belong in the death's-head category
need to be considered separately for they appear much too crude to have
been made by Johnson. First, the wall-eyed skull on Joseph White's^ stone

Connecticut Gravestones

(1725) (Fig. 6) is a reminder of William Stanclift's style, but the lettering
seems to exclude him as the designer. Johnson was somewhat influenced by
William Stanclift, one of the most popular stonecutters in the early
eighteenth century, for one can detect numerous Stanclift characteristics on
many of Johnson's early stones. It is possible that they worked together for a
while, but no written suggestions of any such partnership have been found.
The gross errors on the second stone for John Savage (1726) are not at all in
keeping with the careful work that Johnson usually displayed. He may, of
course, have had some off-days when he was not feeling very well or when his
chisel was a litde slippery, but it seems safer to attribute these two stones to
apprentices. These stones are to be contrasted with the stone for Galup
Tood (Fig. 7), with its vase and flowers (North Haven, 1731). It does not
detract from this stone to point out that it was an obvious imitation of some
seventeenth-century Boston artist, because it is, nevertheless, one of the pret-
tiest extant examples of early Connecticut stone art.

Fig. 4 Capt. Gershom Palmer 1727. Clinton.

The Thomas Johnsons

it' ^ ' . •I'd

Fig. 5 Deacon Joseph Tallcott 1732. Footstone. Wethersfield.

It may never be known why Johnson suddenly stopped making death's-
head stones in 1736. His work had been accepted by many of the best
families in the valley, at least as far up as Northampton; and on one occasion
he went to Springfield to make his popular stones from a nearby quarry for
his many customers there. And then, too, he should have been flattered by
so many imitators. One rather crude fellow in Simsbury continued to be
popular until the 1750s, merely on his version of Johnson's design; and
another stonecutter who seems to have lived in Durham also became popular
with his imitations. There is a stone in Hadley, Massachusetts, dated 1742,
that is such an excellent imitation that it could easily pass for an original.^ It
is possible that Johnson may have been seriously injured, enough to have
prevented his working in the quarry, for stonecutting was such a hazardous
occupation that it now seems surprising that most of the old stonecutters
lived so long, but at worst this could have been only a temporary injury, for
he is known to have made innumerable gravestones of a different style from
1743 until he died.

Connecticut Gravestones

wife: " vvi^>i\/i.Mrti^^»;

Fig. 6 Joseph White 1725. Cromwell.

" ''* Sm

mli^^^i

Fig. 7 Galup Tood 1731. North Haven.

The Thomas Johnsons 67

Probably the best explanation of his failure to make death's-head stones
after 1736 is that he had temporarily abandoned gravestone cutting in favor
of cutting stones for houses. Inasmuch as the Hancock contract was signed in
1737, he probably had many less important deals before and after that; and
besides, the Hancock contract must have taken considerable time to fulfill.
Also important is the fact that by 1736 his son Thomas, who was later to be-
come a very popular and accomplished stonecutter, was eighteen years of
age, old enough to have taken over the gravestone part of the business while
the father was engaged in cutting building stones, which may have been more
lucrative. At all events, no records have been found that positively connect
the elder Thomas with gravestones between January, 1737, when he signed a
receipt for Elisabeth Levingston of New London, and 1743.

Transition Stones

There is now to be considered a group of stones, all dated in the 1730s,
that were made by one of the Johnsons, either Captain Thomas or his son.
Although very few of them can be identified by probate records, one stone of
this type (in the much-neglected Second Burial Ground, which is hidden in
some woods far from the Norwich Road in East Haddam) marks the grave of
Lydia Chapman (1738), whose estate paid "Mr. Johnson for Grave Stones £l-
18-0" in 1738. At one time, before we had any idea concerning the designer,
we classified these stones as "kidneys and flowers" ("hearts and flowers"
would have been more euphemistic but less accurate) because of their distinc-
tive border design. In their pristine state most of these borders were prob-
ably very pretty with their lacy, delicate flowers, but now time has marred
their beauty, and the eye is generally attracted to the peculiar kidney-shaped
objects which were apparently meant for leaves (Fig. 8).

These stones are a curious mixture of attractive and unattractive art. Most
of them show a pugnacious skull with a misplaced set of teeth, not at all in
keeping with their artistic crowns and graceful curving wings. When studied
at close range these stones have enough features in common with earlier
death's-head stones to indicate that if they were not made by Thomas,
Senior, at least they were made by someone very closely associated with him.
First, the stones have the same geographic distribution as death's-head

Connecticut Gravestones

l^viV

Fig. 8 Alice Collins 1735. Enfield.

The Thomas Johnsons 69

Stones; and the frightening hollowed-out eyes and triangular noses were ob-
viously copied from the original death's-head stones. Also, as on the
originals, the spacing and lettering are fairly good; and the uncrossed W's
and slightly elevated g's are similar. By far the best evidence of a close
relationship to death's-head stones is the transition stone in Wethersfield for
Mary Meeks (Mix) (1734) with its "kidney-flower" border, but with a death's-
head crown that could have been made only by a Johnson. And yet there are
enough differences to indicate that these stones were probably not the work
of Thomas Johnson, Senior. Neither the delicate thorn with its e directly
over a very graceful y, nor the flourishing ampersand (&) can be found on
any death's-head stones. The sixes, nines, and the footstones are also
decidedly different. One also finds, occasionally, such innovations as a com-
bined ct or St, or a fancy curving cross-bar on a capital A. Apparently the
Johnson influence was still at play, but with new ideas and new hands in con-
trol.

Three other stones in Wethersfield show that the "kidney-flower" man
(probably Thomas, Junior) sometimes made some radical experiments. The
profile design on the stone of Isaac Riley (1757/8) (Fig. 9), which later in the
eighteenth century was to become fairly common in Connecticut was, in
1738, as unusual as the name of the man for whom it was designed. The
stones for Jonathan Belding (Fig. 10) and Susanna Dickinson, both dated
1736 and very much alike, with their unusual shapes and exceptionally pretty
fig borders, would be most attractive except for their pugnacious skulls.
Nevertheless, the handiwork is excellent and if the younger Thomas Johnson
made them, he was a skillful artisan before he was twenty years of age.

It is not wise to try to separate gravestones made during the 1740s and
1750s by the father, Captain Thomas, from those made by his son, because
there is considerable evidence that they worked together. Sometimes one
was paid for the stones and sometimes the other. As instances, on November
4, 1747, Joshua Hempstead "went to Capt. Johnsons att ye upperhouses &
bot 3 pr of Gr stones for £3"; and the estate of James Easton (East Hartford,
1756) (Fig. 11) paid "Thomas Johnson Esquire for Grave Stones ... 2 pair . . .
£3-0-0." On the other hand, the Connecticut State Library has a signed
receipt for gravestones in the Old Cove Burying Ground in East Haddam:

70 Connecticut Gravestones

December the 8th 1755
Received of Mr Joshua Brednerd Executor on the Estate of Capt
Joshua Brainerd Deceased - the Sum of Forty-pounds Money of the
old Tenor in Full for a pr of Grave Stones for the Deceased

pr me
Thos Johnson Junior

Many records state merely that "Thomas Johnson" or "Mr Johnson" was
paid for gravestones, and it is now impossible to be certain whether this
meant father or son. The records are still more confusing because Captain
Thomas had another son, Stephen, who was also a stonecutter eventually as-
sociated in the business. In 1743 he bought a dwelling house, barn, and five
acres of land on the east side of the river which his father had previously
bought from Thomas Bliss in 1740. The price of this property (£275) seems
pretty high unless it included a quarry. Stephen's name, however, has not as
yet been definitely connected with any particular gravestone, so his style can-
not be determined. Most likely he never worked independently.

Fig. 9 Lt. Isaac Riley 1737/38. Wethersfield.

The Thomas Johnsons

hail
jrtte Bel din

J T rs 6

Fig. 10 Jonathan Belding 1736. Wethersfield.

Fig. 11 James Easton 1756. Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.

72 Connecticut Gravestones

The transition from the "kidney-flower" design to the later Johnson style
may be easily seen when the stones are studied in detail. The triangular nose
was gradually changed to a trifurcated nose, as if an attempt were being
made to illustrate nostrils; and the cadaverous eyes gradually ceased to be
hollowed out. Obviously the Johnsons had decided to carve beautiful angels
instead of frightening skulls, and when they found that an extra set of teeth
did not look well on an angel, this incongruous feature was also eliminated.
When the stone for Judith Wolcott (Fig. 12), dated 1740 (which is not a
proven Johnson stone but is identical with the Mix stone which is shaled), is
compared with that for Daniel Smith (1751) (Fig. 13), it will be seen that
there had been considerable experimenting with borders while the new, yet
uninteresting, facial design had remained fairly constant. These dead-pan
cherubs remained in vogue until the middle 1750s, when they were replaced
by more appealing fat-cheeked cherubs. By that time the Johnsons were ex-
ceedingly popular and were able to offer their customers a number of dif-
ferent styles to suit the purse. One could have the relatively simple design
such as that on the stone for Jane Easton in East Hartford for £1-10-0, or
something more decorative such as that on the stone for Samuel Treat (1756)
in Wethersfield for £3-17-0 (Fig. 14), or even the still more ornate type such
as that on the stone for Joshua Brainerd in East Haddam for £40. This last
stone, at present covered with lichen, is not photogenic, but it is very similar
to the stone for Daniel Ranney (1758) in Cromwell with its tassels, rosettes
and complex nondescript borders. The most expensive stones made by the
Johnsons were the huge table-top tombs with fluted columns. They special-
ized in tablestones and charged as much as £125 when an ordinary pair of
gravestones was selling for £3 or less.

One noticeable feature of all Johnson stones after 1750 is the very careful
lettering. They were among the first in Connecticut to letter their stones ac-
cording to plan, so the spacing is usually very good and there are not many
errors to be found. By modern standards the dots on the i's are a little high
and the small t's rather short, but each single letter took lots of time and
care. Because of their distinctive lettering, which one comes to recognize at
a glance after viewing all sorts of gravestones, it is safe to attribute to the
Johnsons such a wide variety of stones as the tablestone for Deacon John

The Thomas Johnsons

Lathrop in Tolland (1752), the cigar-store-Indian stone for the Starr triplets
in Middletown (1755), and the stone with curly-headed cherubs for the Stock-
ing twins in Cromwell (1756).

;■* ^ :->x^- ^•' -^

Fig. 12 Judith Wolcott 1740/1. Wethersfield.

Connecticut Gravestones

There are no written records to indicate where the Johnsons obtained
their stones in the early days. Their Cromwell land records do not mention
any quarry, although they probably worked in Cromwell at a quarry which
was described in a 1787 newspaper as "an excellent Quarry of Stone, much
used and approved," The largest quarries in that region were across the
river, notably those owned by the Stanclifts, and there was another large
quarry there which Giles Hall bought in 1729 from the estate of William
Webster, housewright of Boston, for £150. He bought it from WiUiam
Stanclift. When Hall died in 1750, his quarry, which was then valued at
£1600, was left to his four heirs, but there is no evidence that Webster, Hall
or any of his sons made gravestones. At any rate in November, 1759, the
Thomas Johnsons, father and son, purchased from the four Hall sons a part,
and in July, 1760, the remainder of the "land & Quarries lying on the East
side of Connecticut-River in Middletown, at a place commonly known by the
name of Halls quaries . . . Buted South partly on James Stanclifts land or
quaries . . . and West partly on the River, and partly on James Stanclifts
quaries, and partly on John Gills land."

Itle S}pt ?' the c> ^'^- \
xy^j In the r^qr

^L^^

Fig. 13 Daniel Smith 1751. Berlin.

The Thomas Johnsons

. oa\':ti ,-r it ri

Fig. 14 Samuel Treat 1756. WethersHeld.

Obviously business was so good that the Johnsons intended to expand, but
before many months the elder Thomas died, according to his tombstone on
April 24, 1761. He appears to have worked right up to the end, for his will
was signed in Wallingford four days before he died, although he lived in
Cromwell. His total estate, appraised for about £550, included numerous
small lots, most of them in Cromwell, and altogether over 100 acres. He also
owned a Negro man, actually a couple with three boys, more than 100 pounds
of hides, a wig, and "311 lb of Crobars and Sledges picks and Wedges." But
despite his fame and great success as a stonecutter, he still owed money on
the Hall quarries, and he was, as he had been for many years, indebted to his
son. In addition to his wife, Susannah (1694-1786), Captain Thomas was sur-
vived by two sons, Thomas and Stephen, who continued in the business.
Daniel, a hatter (1729-1756), had died at Lake George, and Amos, a cooper
(1731-1758), had died at Schenectady, both while serving in the Army. He
also left a daughter, Ruth, who had married the John Gill mentioned above
and whose home was next to the quarries. Another minor but interesting
sidelight is that the multiple birth factor was present in this family. Desire

76 Connecticut Gravestones

and Thankful, twins, had married and were still living when their father died.
Hepzibah married Dr. Aaron Roberts and gave birth to twins. Susannah
married Moses Bush, the shipbuilder, and gave birth to triplets. George
Bush, one of the triplets, became the father of twins.

Thomas Johnson (1718-1774)
The second Thomas Johnson, son of Captain Thomas, was born on Oc-
tober 18, 1718, and married Mary Atwater of Wallingford on August 7, 1745.
He bought a small part of his father's homelot in 1744 and various other lots
in Cromwell between 1743 and 1750. He was generally known as "Ensign
Thomas" or as "Deacon Thomas." Apparently he became a stonecutter soon
after he was strong enough to wield a heavy hammer and, like his father, he
soon became a master craftsman. In 1768 he bought Comfort Stanclift's
share of the Stanclift quarries in Chatham, which were adjacent to the Hall
quarries that he and his father had purchased in 1759-60.

Fig. 15 Mary Hooker 1765. Center Burying Ground, Hartford.

The Thomas Johnsons 77

In December, 1774, he said that he had "Carried on the Business at the
Quary in Company with Gideon Hale Stephen Johnson James Stanclift and
my son Thomas.'"*

No records have been found to indicate whether or not this was a com-
pany in the modern sense, whether or not it made gravestones, or how long it
was in business. Some stones dated 1755 for which the second James
Stanclift was paid show the Johnson lettering, suggesting that the company
was then in existence, yet nothing was said about it in the probate papers of
the elder Thomas Johnson, who died in 1761. Perhaps its sole purpose was
to quarry stones for houses. Even if the company did make gravestones, the
Johnsons were in command because they usually managed to collect the cash.

The only stones that can, with certainty, be attributed to Deacon Thomas
(or his company) are those for which a Thomas Johnson was paid after 1761,
when the first Thomas died, and before 1770, when a third Thomas had be-
come old enough to make gravestones. In 1763 the estate of John Gould of
Cromwell paid £2-3-4 to [Deacon Thomas] Johnson for "Grave Stones & for
Molasis." He also signed a receipt in 1762 indicating that he had been paid
for gravestones for Ebenezer Geer of Groton. He was paid for Mary
Hooker's gravestone (Fig. 15) in Hartford (1765), Roger Wolcott's tablestone
in Windsor (1767), Joseph Gleason in Middletown (1767), and the Harvey
family gravestones in Lyme (1769).^

It is probably fair to assume that he also made the stones for his son,
Lemuel (1745-1761) (Fig. 16), and for his sisters, Ruth Gill (1762) and Susan-
nah Bush (1766).

(On the reverse of a nicely written receipt for gravestones for some mem-
bers of the Harvey family of Joshuatown (Lyme) is the disclosure that John
Gill was paid ten shillings for transportation. He was the son of Ebenezer
Gill, who at one time was official inspector of all quarries in Middletown,
both east and west of the river, and who was paid for gravestones in 1728, but
he, too, may have been acting merely as an agent since those stones cannot
be distinguished from William Stanclift's stones. At any rate, John Gill
owned land very near the Johnson quarries and, having married Ruth
Johnson, was brother-in-law to the Deacon and no doubt very closely as-
sociated with him in business.)

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 16 Lemuel Johnson 1761. Cromwell.

Except for minor changes in the crowns and borders, there was very Httle
difference between the stones made before and after the elder Thomas died.
Even the lettering is very much the same. There were some with the same
flat oval faces and trifurcated noses, and others with more attractive three-
dimensional faces, especially with rounded cheeks. Either the Deacon had
been the predominant influence in the later stages of the father-and-son
relationship, or else he had learned that his father's design was popular
enough to warrant continuation.

Deacon Thomas died December 26, 1774. His estate, valued at ap-
proximately £1300, included two Negro slaves, three or four houses, some
blue breeches, a beaver hat, one bob-tailed cow, part of a fish boat, some
smith tools, "Pecks and Sledges," twenty old chisels, more than 140 pounds of
wedges, some mason's tools and the quarry. Inasmuch as he owned a book
on heraldry, he probably cut the coat-of-arms on the tablestone for Edward
Bulkley, who died in Rocky Hill in 1748. The southern part of the quarry was
left to a son, Thomas, while the remainder was left to six other sons with in-
structions that "Thomas shall have the Sole use and Improvement of the

The Thomas Johnsons 79

whole of my Quarry Lot with all the Tools & Utensils used in working the
Quarry during his natural Life." Concerning the quarry company, Thomas
was directed to "Settle and Adjust the Amounts with said Company and
Receive and Collect in the Debts Due for Stone and work we have done
whether already Delivered or not out of which my will is that my son Thomas
pay the Debts Due to the workmen . . .," all of which probably means that the
quarry company was then dissolved.

Thomas Johnson (1750-1789)

When Deacon Thomas died near the end of December, 1774, it was ap-
parent that the third Thomas was the favorite and most gifted son since he
had been selected to carry on the family trade. He was usually known as
"Thomas Johnson of Chatham," and he was living there in 1775 when, as ex-
ecutor of his father's estate, he advertised the sale of a part of the old family
homestead in Cromwell. Very likely he was making gravestones before 1770,
but because his first name was the same as his father's, the earliest stone that
can now be definitely attributed to him is that for Burrage Merriam (Fig. 17)
in Rocky Hill, dated 1776. An adminstrator of the estate of Timothy Bigelow
of Middletown (1776) (Fig. 18), either trying to save some money or perhaps
thinking that young Thomas was not sufficiently skillful for the task, ordered
a pair of gravestones from David Miller for £1-16-0, which he "afterwards
thought improper to put up," so he finally came around to the popular view
and bought "1 pr ditto of Thomas Johnson for £4-10-0." The £14 which
Thomas received from the Samuel Starr estate (Middletown, 1782) was (part
payment?) for a tablestone; so the £100 he received from the Elisha Wright
estate (Wethersfield, 1778) probably included stones for buildings. This was
a very large amount, considering that in 1784 Ebenezer White of Chatham
gave Johnson only 15/6 and "2 Bushels of Corn to pay for Ant Sibbils Grave
Stones" (diary in Connecticut Historical Society).

As a stonecutter, Thomas Johnson of Chatham did not make any innova-
tions. Perhaps he thought that there was no need to change inasmuch as his
gravestones would sell as fast as he could make them. They show the same
general design, wings, borders and lettering as the stones made by his father,
although the angels have more pointed chins and more drowsy eyes. The

Connecticut Gravestones

chief difference lies in the degree and style of intricate carvings at the top of
each stone. The third Thomas might be dismissed as just another stonecutter
except that he was a master at a time when brownstone markers were at the
height of their popularity. Through him the Johnson tradition influenced
numerous young stonecutters who were learning their trade at the Portland
quarries near the end of the eighteenth century.

Fig. 17 Rev^ Burrage Merriam 1776. Rocky Hill.

The Thomas Johnsons

-1^

Fig. 18 Timothy Bigelow 1776. Riverside Burying Ground, Middletown.

About 1778, with the demand for his gravestones as great as ever, Johnson
began to add to his real estate in Chatham. He bought two dwelhng houses
near Bush's shipyard, although he already owned a dwelling house on the
quarry lot; and in 1782 he bought from the third "James Stanclift of
Chatham" the remainder of the Stanclift quarry, which was adjacent to his
own. No doubt he was very close to the Stanclifts, for after the second James
died in 1772 Johnson was empowered to sell part of the estate, and the
Stanclift name appears fairly frequently in all Thomas Johnson records. He
also bought the rights to the northern half of his father's estate from his
brothers, who had moved to other towns -- William to Stockbridge, Mas-
sachusetts, Amos and Lemuel to Hillsdale, New York, and Samuel to Lan-
caster, New Hampshire. In 1780 Thomas advertised that he needed a jour-
neyman stonecutter, and from about 1783 to 1785 he was in partnership with
Joseph Gleason (fl. 1783-1808).^ They mentioned in the Connecticut Gazette
(New London, May 4 and July 18, 1785) that they carried on the "Stone Cut-
ting Business in the famous and noted Quarry called Connecticut Quarry, in
Chatham; where is the best work in stone of any in America, such as house-

82 Connecticut Gravestones

work of any order, carving, engraving . . . ." The Richard Robbins estate
(Wethersfield 1783) paid "Johnson and Gleason for 2 pair of grave stones
5-10-0"; and the Daniel Griswold estate (Wethersfield, 1786) "paid Johnson
[and] Gleason for gravestones 5-10-0." Joseph Gleason witnessed a Johnson
real estate transaction in 1788.

By late 1785 Thomas seems to have been working by himself again be-
cause he alone was paid £6-15-3 for the Samuel Willis gravestones (Fig. 19).
From the large number of his stones in various towns throughout the Connec-
ticut Valley it appears that his business was thriving, but there is some
evidence of his slowing down in 1787, for he then began to relinquish some of
his holdings. To Noah Smith, who had married his Aunt Desire, he leased a
"piece of Quarry formerly called Stanclift's Quarry ... for Twenty five
Spanish Milled Dollers . . . and the priviledge of my black smith shop and Bel-
lows for Sharping Tools used in said Quarry he finding his own Coles."
Johnson remained in business until 1788, when it was obvious that he wished
to retire because of some chronic illness. That March he leased his "Stone
quarry lying in Chatham on the Banks of Connecticut River near the Burying
Ground . . . with all the appurtenances & priviledge there to Belonging with
Quarry Tools & Utentials" to Peter Buckland of East Hartford and William
Crosby of Chatham for £30 annually, one-third in silver and gold, one-third
in provisions, and the rest in "India & Dry Goods." In this lease Buckland
and Crosby were described as "Stone-Cutters" whereas Johnson was "Thomas
Johnson of Chatham, Gentleman." The following August he sold the quarry
and buildings outright to Buckland and Crosby; and to his brothers Lemuel
and Amos he sold back their rights to their father's estate just to the north of
the quarry. It was apparent that he was going out of business, but then oc-
curred a strange transaction. On September 13, 1788, he repurchased from
Buckland and Crosby for £354, the same amount that they had paid to him,
everything he had previously sold, and on the same day he resold the
property to Joel Hall (no relation to Giles Hall) for £950.' The sale to Hall
possibly included other land, but not enough to account for this great dif-
ference. Why, then, did Buckland and Crosby resell to Johnson when they
had bought the quarries just one month previously? And why did Joel Hall
pay Johnson £950 when the property could have been purchased from Buck-

The Thomas Johnsons

land and Crosby for £354? The only obvious conclusion to be drawn from
this complicated deal is that Johnson had given up hope of carrying on his
trade. On October 3, 1788, he advertised that, being in "a low and declining
state of health and his affairs much embarrased," he desired his creditors to
meet at his dwelling house in Chatham where he would settle his accounts "in
the best manner I am able." On October 13, 1788 the Middlesex Gazette
carried another notice:

The Free Stone Quarry, at Chatham, (known by the Name of
Johnson's Quarry), is now worked under the Direction of Shaler and
Hall, who will supply the Stone at the shortest Notice, and at the
lowest Prices, either in the Ruff or finished, and in such Dimensions as
may be required. They will contract to furnish any Quantity, for
public or private Buildings, Flags, Grave-Stones or Monuments, and
deliver them to any Port in North-America. Orders directed (post
paid) to Shaler & Hall, at the Quarry, Chatham, will have due Atten-
tion. October 13, 1788.

Fig. 19 Samuel Willis 1785. Riverside Burying Ground, Middletown.

84 Connecticut Gravestones

Johnson made gravestones as late as November 6, 1788, when he signed
the receipt for "2 setts of gravestones 5-10-0" for the estate of John Allen
Christopher of New London, and possibly he made a few more after that, for
when he died on April 21, 1789, at the age of thiry-eight, his inventory in-
cluded four "Cut Grave Stones , , . and 2 hewed Stones," each 7 1/2 feet long.
He also left one large hearthstone, five stone pillars, one stone window-cap
as well as nineteen feet of unfinished stone. The tools and old iron in his
shop, his case of empty gin bottles and his blacksmith's vise were valued at
small sums. Possibly these were the same smith tools that the first James
Stanclift had used when he was working the same quarry one hundred years
before. Blacksmithing came in handy to stonecutters because their tools
were constantly being broken or getting dull, and besides, it was a trade that
could keep them busy in the winters when the quarries were covered with
snow.

With the sale of the quarries to persons outside the family, and with the
death of Thomas of Chatham, who left no children,^ we close the account of
three generations of stonecutting Thomas Johnsons. For good or bad, they
had greatly influenced gravestone making in Connecticut for three-quarters
of a century, and the innumerable stones still standing, as well as the large
number of imitators who continued to make stones of the same general style
after 1789, are the best proofs of their popularity. Johnson stones may not be
too attractive by modern standards, but there can be no doubt that they ap-
pealed to eighteenth-century sense of beauty. They also appealed very much
to the Johnsons, for they greatly admired each other's work and each was
very faithful to the family trade. It is fitting, therefore, that they should now
lie side by side in the old burying ground in Cromwell.

List of references to Thomas Johnson in the Probate Papers at the Connecticut State
Library.

Possibly some of these notes refer to Thomas Johnson other than the famous stonecutters.
So far as is known the few Thomas Johnsons who descended from Isaac and who lived in
southern Middletown, Haddam and Durham did not make gravestones. Also the moneys men-
tioned here were not necessarily paid for gravestones. The dates refer to probate papers, not
dates of death:

The Thomas Johnsons 85

1723 Matthew Cadwell, Hartford, "pd Mr Johnson of middletown 1-4-6."
1725 Samuel Wilcox, Middletown. "Thos Jonson 03-00-00."

Stone in Cromwell.
1728 Jehiel Hawley, Middletown. "pade to thomas Johnson for grave Stons 1-1-0."
1728 David Ensign, Hartford, "by Grave Stons to Tho Johnson 1-10-0."

Stone in West Hartford.
1732 Robert Warner, Middletown. "To Thos Johnson 1-10-0."

Stone in Middletown (Riverside).
1734 Benoni Sage, Middletown. "To Thos Johnson 1-12-0."

Stone in Christian Lane Cemetery, Berlin.
1734 Jacob White, Jr., Middletown. "To Tho Johnson for Grave Stones 1-8-0."

Stone in Cromwell (Fig. 1).

1734 Nathan Smith, Wethersfield. "Due by Book to thomas Jonson 2-08-0."

1735 Samuel Stow, Middletown. "To Mr Thos Johnson 1-12-11."

1735 Nathaniel Roberts, Middletown. Mentions "Thomas Johnson town Collector 0-4-3."

1737 Eliz. Livingston, New London 1736. In a nice flourishing hand""New London
January the 7th 1736/7. Then Recieved of Sarah Christophers as administratix of the
estate of Mrs Elizabeth Levingston Deceqaad for a set of Tomb Stones the sum of fif-
teen punds money I say Reciev By Me Thos Johnson."

1738 Lydia Chapman, East Haddam. "To Mr Johnson for Grave Stones 1-18-0."
Stone in Second Burial Ground, off Norwich Road.

1739 Elisha Micks (Mix), Wethersfield. "to Cap Johnson 34-0-0."
Stone in Wethersfield.

1739 Ruth Wilcox, Middletown. "paid to Capt Johnson 05-13-09."

1739 Joseph Whitmore, Middletown. "Thos Johnson 03-13-0."
Stone in Cromwell.

1740 Samuel Hall, Middletown. Thomas Johnson witnessed will.
Stone in Middletown (Riverside).

1740 Isaac Hall, Middletown. "Captain Johnson 00-18-00."

1741 Joseph Butler, Middletown. Capt. Johnson mentioned twice.

1743 Ebenezer Whetmore, Middletown. "to pd Capt Johnson for Grave Stones 4-5-0."
Stone in Middletown (Riverside).

1743 William Wilcocks, Middletown. "Thos Johnson 9-18-4."

1744 Roger Beffin, Stratford. "To cash to Thomas Johnson Ston-Cutter for Grave Stones
5-0-0."

Stone in Stratford.
1746 Jeremiah Bacon, Middletown. "Paid to Capt: Thomas Johnson 8-14-9."

Stone in Middletown (Riverside).
1748 George Phillips, Middletown. "to paid Mr Thos Johnson for a Large Toom Stone 140-

00-00."

Stone not found; probably in some other city.
1748 Ebenezer Sage, Middletown. "To Thom Johnson 3-0-0."
1748 Jonathan Skinner, Hartford. "Thos Johnson 7-10-0."
1748 Joseph Skinner, Hartford. "Thos Johnson 11/5/0."

Stone in Hartford.

1748 John Williams, Wethersfield. "Thomas Johnson 10-10-0."
Stone in Rocky Hill.

1749 Samuel Freeman, Middletown. "Thos Johnson 8-10-0."
Stone in East Hampton (Hog Hill).

1751 John Sage, Middletown. "Pd Cpt Jonson for a toomb 112-0-0."

Tablestone in Cromwell.
1751 Edward Shepard, Middletown. "pd to Thos Johnson Jr 9-2-10."

g5 Connecticut Gravestones

1751 Daniel Smith, Middletown. "grave stones allowed to Thomas Johnson 11-15-0."

Stone in Berlin (Fig. 13).
1753 Daniel Clark, Middletown. "Thomas Johnson Junr 13-0-0."

Tablestone in Middletown (West Side).

1753 Martha Robbins, Wethersfield. "To Capt Johnson for Gravestones 10-10-00."
Stone in Wethersfield, incription shaled.

1754 Nathaniel Goodwin, Middletown. "To Thomas Johnson pr Rect 17-0-0."
Stone in Middletown (Riverside).

1755 Joshua Brainerd, East Haddam. Receipt signed by Thomas Johnson, Jr. Stone in
East Haddam (Old Cove).

1755 Abraham Blatchly, Durham. "To Thos Johnson Junr 40-0-0."

1756 James Easton, Hartford. "Thomas Johnson Esq for Grave Stones 2 pair 3-0-0.
Stephen Harris for bringing the Grave Stones to Hartford 0-10-0."

Stones in East Hartford (Fig. 11.
1756 Joseph Savage, Middletown. "To Capt Johnson 1-0-0."

Stone in Cromwell.
1756 Samuel Treat, Wethersfield. "To Mr Johnson Middletown 3-17-0."

Stone in Wethersfield (Fig. 14).

1756 Isaac Waterman, Middletown. "to 20/ paid to Sart [Sargeant] Johnson for Grave
Stones 1-00-0. balance of the acompt of James Stanclift the 3rd 18-10-0."

1757 John Gypson (Gibson?), Middletown. "Thomas Johnson 2-3-0."
Stone in Cromwell, broken.

1757 Thomas Langrell, Hartford. "To Tho Johnson 6-1-0."

Stone in Hartford.
1757 James Ward, Middletown. "To paid to Capt Johnson for toomb 13-17-0 To James

Stanclef 1-1-8."

Stone in Middletovwi (Riverside).
1757 Janna Wilcox Jr., Middletown. "To Cash pd Thos Johnson 1-4-0."
1757 Josiah Willard, Wethersfield. "Thos Johnson 2-4-0."

Stone in Newington.
1759 Daniel Ranney, Middletown. "To paid Mr Johnson 02-00-00."

Stone in Cromwell.
1759 Ashbel Woodbridge, Glastonbury. "To Thomas Johnson Junr 4-4-8.

To Thos Johnson 3-10-4."

Stones in Glastonbury.
1759 Joseph White, Middletown. "Thomas Johnson 1-1-5."

Stone in Cromwell.
1759 Mary Willard, Wethersfield. "Paid to Thos Johnson as pr Rect 2-2-0."

Stone in Newington.
1761 Thomas Johnson's probate papers.

Tablestone in Cromwell.
1763 John Gould, Middletown. "To pd Johnson for Grave Stones & for Molasis 2-3-4."

Stone in Cromwell.
1763 Ebenezer Gill, Groton. Signed receipt for gravestones.

1763 Timothy Wright, Wethersfield. "To cash Paid Thos Johnson 3-5-3
To Rideing to Middletown for Tomb Stones 6/ ."

Stone in Wethersfield.

1764 Sarah Wright, Wethersfield. "Thos Johnson 2-4-0."
Stone in Wethersfield.

1765 Mary Hooker, Hartford, "to pd Tho Johnson for Grave Stones 5-8-0."
Stone in Hartford (Fig. 15).

1765 Thomas Pierpont (or Pierpoint), Middletown. "To Thomas Johnson 4-18-8."

The Thomas Johnsons 87

1767 Joseph Gleason, Middletown. "Mr Thomas Johnson Bill for Tombstones 14-10-0."

1767 Roger Wolcott, Windsor.

"To Grave Stone of Ebenezer Drake 04-00-00

To Carrying the stones over the River 00-08-00

To Cash to Thomas Johnson for a Table Stone 06-15-00

To boating the stone from Middletown 00-10-00

To carting the Stone from the River 00-03-00

To cash to Matthew Grant for setting up the Stone 00-03-05."

Tablestone in Windsor. Top by Johnson; legs by Drake.

1769 John Harvey, Lyme. Signed receipt for gravestones for John, Elizabeth and Joshua
Harvey.

Stones in Lyme, (Joshuatown).

1770 Nathaniel Savage, Chatham. "Thos Johnson 1-16-00."
Stone in Portland (Center).

1772 Samuel Galpin, Middletown. "To pd Thos Johnson for Grave Stones 2-2-0."
Stone in BerUn.

1772 James Lockwood, Wethersfield. "Novr 30 1775. To Cash pd Mr Johnson in full for
making a Tomb Stone 16-7-10 3/4."

Tablestone in Wethersfield.

1773 John Morton, Wethersfield. "to Mr. Johnson for gravestones 2-4-0."
Stone in Rocky Hill.

1773 Josiah Wolcott, Wethersfield. "Capt Jonson toomb Stones 2-5-0."
Stone in Rocky Hill.

1774 Deacon Thomas Johnson's probate papers.
Tablestone in Cromwell.

1776 Burrage Merriam, Wethersfield. "To Mr Johnson for Grave Stons for Burrage 2-6-0 ."
Stone in Rocky Hill (Fig. 17).

1776 James Wells, Wethersfield. "Thomas Johnson 23-1-3."
Stone in Wethersfield.

1777 Timothy Bigelow, Middletown. "1 pr Grave Stones bou't of David Miller which I after-
wards tho't improper to put up 1-16-0 1 pr ditto bou't of Thomas Johnson 4-10-0."
Stone in Middletown (Riverside).

1778 Samuel Starr, Middletown. "1782, May 2. To 2 days after a Tombstone & Expence
0-13-1. Sept 16, 1782 To pd Thomas Johnson for tomb Stone 14-0-0. 1787 Feb. 8 To
pd for Getting over tomb Stone 0-5-10."

Tablestone in Middletown (Riverside).
1778 Elisha Wright, Wethersfield. "To pd Thos Johnson 100-0-0 To Cash pd bringing
Grave Stones Setting up &c 0-16-16."
Stone in Wethersfield.

1780 Nathaniel Sage, Middletown. "To Cash pd Thos Johnson for Grave Stones 2-2-6."
Stone in Cromwell, defaced.

1781 Jonathan Wood, Chatham. "James Stanclift 9-18-0; Thomas Johnson 4-5-4" (paid in
1788).

1782 Elisabeth Jones (or Johnes), Lyme. Signed receipt for "three pound eighteen shillings
in hard cash in full for a pr of grave stones wrote on . . ."

1782 Sarah Stevenson, Chatham. "To Thos Jonson for Grave Stones 3-0-0."
Stone in Portland (Center).

1783 John Allen Christopher, New London. Thomas Johnson was paid 5-10-0 for 2 sets of
gravestones.

1784 Joseph Kirby, Middletown. "To paid Thos Johnson pr Rect 5-10-0."
Stone in Cromwell.

1785 Samuel Willis, Middletown. "To Thos Johnson bill for grave stones 6-15-3."

Connecticut Gravestones

1787

1789

Stone in Middletown (Riverside) (Fig. 19).
Esther Harris, Chatham. "Thomas Jonson 2-15-0.'
Stone in East Hampton (Hog Hill).
Thomas Johnson of Chatham. Probate papers.
Stone in Cromwell.

NOTES

1. In the basement of the Central Church in New Haven are many eighteenth-century grave-
stones. Among them is a remarkable sandstone for Sarah Woodward (1720) (Fig. 20), the
wife of the Rev. John Woodward. Mrs. Laurel Gabel, who brought this stone to our atten-
tion, suggests relationship to the death's-head stones of Thomas Johnson. The Woodward
stone appears to have been carved by a Newport carver, possibly associated with the
Stevens shop. Stones that are very similar but carved on a handsome dark slate are found
in a number of Stonington burying grounds, especially the small Denison graveyard in Mys-
tic. Vincent Luti, our foremost authority on the Rhode Island carvers, calls him the "G.
Man carver." It seems probable that the Woodward stone, or similar ones, served as the
inspiration for Thomas Johnson's skull stones. Note, for example, the similar "Here Lyeth"
wording on the Woodward and Johnson stones in addition to the design similarities.

;y^Hc*rf lyeth y hody

C- ^' ■' \X/f j fifl \var( 1 wl If) r^^'- ^

Fig. 20 Sarah Woodward 1720. Central Church Crypt, New Haven.
Photograph by Farbers.

The Thomas Johnsons 89

2. Joseph White was Mrs. Thomas Johnson's uncle (fide Caulfield).

3. It is the Nathaniel Alexander 1742 stone and probably made by Gideon Hale. The latter
worked both independently and with Thomas Johnson and is now known to have made a
number of Johnson-like skull stones. The separation of the work of Hale from that of
Johnson is a much needed study.

4. My note concerning the quarry company in an article on the Stanclifts (Connecticut Histori-
cal Society Bulletin, January, 1952) should be corrected to correspond with this new
material on the Johnsons. Since the second James Stanclift died in 1772, this James
Stanclift probably refers to a third one of that name, usually called "James Stanclift of
Chatham." (Caulfield note)

5. On the left margin of the Caulfield copy of page 12 is written "Although Thomas junior was
paid Edw. Shepard 1751, Daniel Clark 1753, Joshua Brainerd 1755 (stones specified), Abs.
Blatchley 1755, Isaac Waterman 1756." There is no indication where Dr. Caulfield planned
to place this in the revised text. He also has placed a slash through paragraph 3 with the
words below this "with Gills."

6. Folio? The notation appears without explanation in Caulfield's copy of the published ar-
ticle.

7. Possibly the "repurchase" from Buckland and Crosby was tantamount to foreclosure of a
mortgage.

8. Caulfield's copy has notation "should be rechecked none mentioned in will." He has writ-
ten in pencil two children named Johnson that died in 1776 and 1781 but is not sure if they
are the children of this Thomas Johnson.

9. What follows in the text is Dr. Caulfield's list as it appeared in "Connecticut Gravestones V, "
which was published in the Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin, 21, No. 1 (January,
1956), with some additions from his notes. Some of the stones may, of course, no longer be
found.

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 1 Capt. Joseph Loomis 1748.
Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.

, 'C\Lx^

i ^ ^5 VC A lie *. U vb O t ^ ^ U I 7

'xnoOUCi uic . x'\ -

Fig. 2 Will[ia]ni Woodbridge 1750. Green Burying Ground, Glastonbury.

Joseph Johnson 91

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES VI
Joseph Johnson (1698 - 1783?)

Of all the gravestones that could be used to illustrate Connecticut stone
art in the mid-eighteenth century the most interesting ones are found within
a few miles of each other in Hartford County. They were made from a
smooth, dark-red sandstone, similar to that used by George Griswold over
fifty years before, a relatively soft stone that readily responded to a master
craftsman's chisel. Though an occasional stone of this variety may be found
anywhere between North Guilford and West Springfield, they are far more
numerous in Glastonbury, East Hartford, Windsor and particularly in the old
Edwards graveyard in East [now South] Windsor. Most of them are dated
between 1740 and 1754.

The man who made these stones was exceedingly versatile, altering his
style and size of stone to suit the community standing of his patrons. With a
skill unsurpassed by any of his contemporaries outside of Boston, he could
make a small plain stone for a child with no design on it except some
pinwheels in the finials, or he could make a more elaborate stone for an
adult, decorated with a skull, crown, rosettes and flowers, all on a stippled
background. He used two different facial designs ~ one a frightening skull
with hoUowed-out eyes and a long row of prominent teeth (too many and too
perfect teeth for an adult skull, perhaps), the other an angel's face with
cleverly spaced pupils in the eyes that gave it a sad and doleful look despite
its turned-up mouth (Figs. 1 and 2). On no other Connecticut gravestones of
that period does one find such ornamented borders. They are usually varia-
tions of a growing vine, sometimes with grapes or pineapples, more often
with flowers and large flowing leaves, all carved with utmost care. No other
Connecticut artist stippled the background of so many of his stones. The let-
tering is excellent, especially in comparison with contemporaneous stones.
One of the best stones of the group is that for William Wolcott (1749) (Fig.
3) of South Windsor which shows a framed inscription.

Many frustrating hours were spent in search for the name of the man who
made these stones, and even now his identity depends somewhat on cir-

92 Connecticut Gravestones

cumstantial evidence. Though there were many names on the stones for
clues, the search of their corresponding probate papers (usually a rewarding
task) yielded not one item of definite information. Other miscellaneous
sources, however, provided clues which, when taken together, allowed some
interesting speculations.

The first clue was a neatly carved letter H at the bottom of the gravestone
for Eunice Loveland of Glastonbury, in a place where engravers usually
carved their initials or their names. This H made us think of Isaac Hayden of
Windsor (d. 1777), because he owned at least part of the quarry whence
these stones originated, and many of the Hayden family gravestones were
made in the style we are attempting to describe. Isaac also had a son, Ezra,
who was paid for gravestones in 1798, so that, all in all, there was a good deal
of circumstantial evidence in favor of a Hayden as the engraver of these
stones.

" s» -

-•Si'

-^ immmm um^^.j«. iiii »miw i i ii i iii i^j i i" ' ^ ' ' .,;>;;_ ;}

S \r

?y 'Died J?'i>^y26V-..-D i ^ ■;

7^9 ill tm 7'

Fig. 3 William Wolcott 1749. Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor.

Joseph Johnson 93

There were, however, more important and contradictory facts which had
to be considered, particularly some entries in the account book of Ebenezer
Grant of East Windsor, which is in the Connecticut State Library. In August,
1748, he paid £lO to "Johnson [for] making Grave Stones for my Children."
On September 25, 1754, as an expense to be charged against the estate of his
mother, Grace, who died April 16, 1753, Grant paid Johnson another £11-10-
00 for gravestones; and Johnson also collected, through Grant, another £14-
17-00 from "Capt. Lomis" in 1749 (though in this last entry gravestones were
not specifically mentioned.) The account book also shows that while he was
engraving the stones Johnson boarded at Grant's home.

It was a pleasant surprise, on a revisit to the Edwards graveyard in East
Windsor, to find that the gravestones for Ebenezer Grant's mother and
children (Fig. 4) were still standing, and also numerous gravestones for
various members of the Loomis family. Not only do these gravestones
belong to the group under consideration, but the double stone for Ann and
Eunice Grant, with its lovely grapevine border, is one of the best examples of
this engraver's art. His name, therefore, was Johnson, not Hayden. But
which member of the numerous Johnson family did Grant have in mind when
he made his entries? In one entry he appears to have written "J Johnson,"
but the J is in different ink and looks as though it may have been an error. It
was known that Thomas Johnson (1690-1761) was one of the best of the early
Connecticut stone engravers, but the stones he made, except in a few details,
are very different from the stones which were made for Ebenezer Grant.

The problem, then, consisted of finding a man named Johnson who lived
near Hartford in the 1740s and who worked on stone from the Windsor
quarries. In this connection Allan MacLean's account book in the Connec-
ticut Historical Society Library proved to be of considerable value. MacLean
kept a store in Hartford and for about three years (1742-1745) he had an ac-
count with a Joseph Johnson of Middletown, selling him such household
necessities as nails, cloth, salt, molasses, sermon books and rum. On Septem-
ber 21, 1745, MacLean credited Joseph Johnson (who by that time was no
longer identified as "Of Midleton") for "Sundry work done by him and his
man Hale plaistering & Calking underpining [and for] making Stap Stones
£20-2-11 ... by Discount with his Brother Thomas Johnson of Middletown

Connecticut Gravestones

£5-0-0 . . . [and for a] Note of hand in full £6-19-2."

lr<: '

Cllf

. ncl EiiNi.
A ] = n d i e d O e i^ %f^ j 747

Tf -"^ 1^ 0} "Yc B.'p. -

■Ett N re R /^':,^ d Ild4£-A8|

Fig. 4 Ann and Eunice Grant 1747. Edwards Burying Ground,
South Windsor. Photograph by Farbers.

Joseph Johnson

Fig. 5 Joseph Johnson 1739. Farm Hill Burying Ground, Middletown.

Inasmuch as gravestone cutters also frequently made step stones (or steps
for doorways) and quite often were masons, too, Joseph Johnson appeared to
have been our man. But which Joseph Johnson of Middletown traded at
MacLean's store? The name Joseph was fairly common in the complicated
Johnson genealogy. While hunting in the old Farm Hill graveyard where
many of the early Johnsons were buried, we came across a stone for a Joseph
Johnson who died in 1739 (Fig. 5). Among the many stones in that Mid-
dletown graveyard was this unusual stone from the Windsor quarries cut in
the style so commonly found in the Windsor graveyards. Anyone who carried
a stone from Windsor to Middletown, which even at that time was well
known for its gravestone quarries, must have had an unusually good reason
for doing so. When it was later discovered that this Joseph Johnson was a
mason, the son of Isaac of Roxbury, Massachusetts, who was also a mason,
and that there was a Joseph Johnson, Jr., (1702-1768) the problem appeared
to be completely solved. There was more circumstantial evidence on some
other Johnson stones, some in the Farm Hill graveyard and some in Durham,
all from the Windsor quarries and all carved by the same man who made

96 Connecticut Gravestones

gravestones for Ebenezer Grant. The evidence seemed perfect -- until, alas,
it was found that Joseph Johnson, Jr., (1702-1768) was neither a mason nor a
stonecutter, nor did he have a brother named Thomas. He, therefore, was
not the man who made step stones for MacLean.

The only Joseph Johnson who answers the description given by MacLean
was born in 1698, son of John and Mehitable of New Haven. The fact that
his brother, Thomas,^ had become a mason and moved to Middletown, where
he was very successful as a gravestone cutter, no doubt influenced Joseph to
do likewise. After the latter became a mason, he also moved to Middletown,
where he bought some land on Mill Hill in 1725. A few months later he
married Hannah Andrus. In 1732 he sold his land on Mill Hill, but he ap-
parently remained in Middletown for awhile because the births of his
children were recorded in the Middletown vital records, although the land
records fail to disclose just where he lived. Further search revealed another
important bit of evidence. In December, 1742, the same "Joseph Johnson of
Midletown . . . [bought] three quarters of an Acre . . . with a Mansion House"
in East Hartford, where he lived until 1750. This accounts for MacLean's
failure to describe him as "of Midletown" after the first few entries. We were
certain, then, that this Joseph was a mason and a stonecutter (at least he
made step stones) and that he had a brother, Thomas, who was well known in
the gravestone business.

There still remains, however, one gap in the evidence, for it can only be
assumed that Joseph was the same person who made gravestones for
Ebenezer Grant. This is not too difficut an assumption inasmuch as
Johnson's change of residence could easily account for the popularity of the
new style of gravestone in Hartford County after 1742. That he would board
with Grant in East Windsor, not many miles from East Hartford, could also
be adequately explained on the ground that he had many new patrons in the
Windsors and that he found it more convenient to live with Grant for short
periods than to return home every night, especially during the winters. Grant
charged him about thirty shillings per week and fifteen shillings for his horse
during his stays in the winter of 1746-1747 and during most of July, August
and December, 1748. On at least one occasion he had to pay Grant for
"Carting a Load of Stone from the ferry" ~ fairly good proof that his grave-

Joseph Johnson 97

Stones originated in the Windsor quarries across the river. There were also
some charges for Johnson's assistant, Holland, and the two of them con-
sumed prodigious amounts of rum, a favorite drink for hard working artisans
and particularly the brawny ones who worked with gravestones. That
Johnson was assisted sometimes by Hale and sometimes by Holland ade-
quately explains the letter H on the Eunice Loveland gravestone.

While he lived in East Hartford, Johnson unquestionably knew the Buck-
lands, Thomas Ritter, Daniel Chandler and Gershom Bartlett, all well-known
gravestone cutters in that neighborhood. Indeed, it is interesting to trace the
Johnson influence on the works of most of these men. Some copied his letter-
ing, others his stippling and nearly all of them imitated his hook-and-eye
design, especially Gershom Bartlett, who later made it famous in Connec-
ticut. (It was called "hook-and-eye" because the central features of the face
resembled the eye of an old-fashioned hook-and-eye).

Johnson was an itinerant stonecutter during the time he lived in East
Hartford, for in Westfield, Massachusetts, there is a single stone for three of
Dr. Israel Ashley's children who died, probably from diphtheria, in 1743.
This stone is a good example of Johnson's relatively simple stones for
children, stones without skulls or angels but nevertheless very carefully made
and rather pleasing to the eye.

Reviewing our notes from probate records, we found Joseph Johnson's
name in various Hartford estates, although not once definitely connected
with gravestones.^ His reputation having been established, his services con-
tinued in demand not only in Connecticut but also in Massachusetts, even
after 1750 when he moved back to a new "Dwelling house near West River"
in Middletown; and he still continued to use stone from the Windsor quarries
on occasion. One of these may be seen in Granville, Massachusetts, dated
1751; and the stone for Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Copley, who died in Suffield
during a dysentery epidemic in 1751, was also made in the Joseph Johnson
style. By accident or design, he was in West Springfield shortly after five
adult members of the Ely family (Fig. 6) died from influenza during May,
1754. Being in the gravestone business, he seemed to have an unusually good
nose for epidemics. He had altered the shape of his most expensive stones by
that time, and they can be better illustrated than described. The most impor-

Connecticut Gravestones

tant probate record that has so far come to light discloses that the estate of
Joseph King of Suffield (1756) paid "Joseph Johnson . . . £1-16-0,"
presumably as last payment for a gravestone of this later style (Fig. 7).

In the Middletown area one finds sandstones cut in the same Joseph
Johnson style as are seen in Hartford County. They have the same shaped
faces with turned-up mouths and some have pupils in the eyes. There are
also a few skulls with teeth. Some have flowered borders and there are even
some with stippled backgrounds. As a rule, however, they are not nearly as
attractive as the Windsor stones, partly because the Middletown stones have
not retained their original sharpness and partly because Johnson seems to
have been less inclined to experiment and less concerned with minute details
as he grew older.

Fig. 6 Ens" John Ely 1754. West Springfield, Mass.

Joseph Johnson

The last years of Johnson's life remain obscure. After he returned to Mid-
dletown he bought some pasture land in the "Boggy Meadow" in 1755. In
1770 he sold some of his homelot and pasture lands, for he was then about
seventy-two years old and had probably retired from his very strenuous oc-
cupation. His only son, Elisha, had a home near his father for awhile, but
about 1763 he moved to Canaan and later to Harwinton. It is not known at
present whether or not he cut gravestones. A Joseph Johnson died in Mid-
dletown in 1783, but, unfortunately, his probate papers cannot now be found.

' iiniioF Ills 7^,'tf'' / . -f ^ 'M:

l^m J i '— — -2 ^i 1 't^ I ;

'f ^ ' ' II / f' ■ m mm i,. ; »i w" -iKiiiitiniMr'im J\^ j

^^^m^'^'^

Fig. 7 Cap' Joseph King 1756. Suffield.

100

Connecticut Gravestones

NOTES

1. Although Dr. Caulfield does say it here, nevertheless in his article it is easy to overlook the
fact that Joseph Johnson was the younger brother of the famous carver Thomas Johnson I
(see Connecticut Gravestones V).

2. In addition to the scanty probate, and better account book, evidence Dr. Caulfield in his
manuscript mentions additional probate references to Joseph Johnson in various Hartford
county estates, but in which gravestones are not specifically mentioned. The only one that
has a Joseph Johnson type of stone is that of Thomas Kilbourn (1748) (Fig. 8) in East
Hartford. Johnson was paid £00-06-03, which Dr. Caulfield felt was hardly enough for a
gravestone of this quality.

Fig. 8 Thomas Kilbourn 1748. Footstone.
Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.

"The Bat" 101

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES VII
"The Bat"

Within the area bounded by a line from Simsbury to Hartford, to Suffield,
to Westfield, Massachusetts, thence back to Simsbury, there are about one
hundred comparatively small gravestones that may be classified together as
the work of one man because they have many distinctive characteristics in
common. Over thirty of them are in Simsbury, which makes it likely that the
engraver was an inhabitant of that town, and especially since the one remain-
ing tablestone he made is there. About twenty may be seen in Suffield,
eighteen in East Granby, ten in Westfield and eight more in Poquonock. The
remainder are scattered in Hartford, Bloomfield, Windsor, Granby and West
Suffield. Made of soft fragile sandstone, some of the stones are now badly
disintegrated, so originally there must have been many more than can be
found today. Most of them are dated between 1733 and 1757, although there
is an occasional stone with a much earlier date, such as the one for Captain
John Higly of Simsbury, dated 1714, but the designs on these early-dated
stones suggest that they were made in the 1730s.

An exhaustive search of corresponding probate papers both in Hartford
and Northampton yielded only tantalizing clues, so for want of a better name
and because of the distinctive scalloped borders on his wing designs, we have
come to know this stonecutter as "The Bat." Indeed, the design may have
been deliberately cut to resemble a bat because at one time that poor, friend-
less creature was the symbol of death.^

"The Bat" was anything but a finished craftsman, for on most of his stones
the lettering is amateurish, shallow and usually very difficult to read. He
used capital letters indiscriminately, especially a capital L in the middle of a
word. The verse on the stone for Captain Joseph Winchel of Suffield (Fig,
1), dated 1743, illustrates some of these pecuharities:

youLL Say hes dead
aLas he cannot dy
hes onLy chang'd
to imortaLity
Weep not for him

102

Connecticut Gravestones

Who has no cause of tears

hush then your sighs

& CaLm your needless fears

Sometimes only the first name of the deceased person appears in capital
letters; and quite often one finds disproportionately tall a's, or a misplaced
long s at the end of a word. Another noticeable characteristic of "Bat" stones
is the misspelling of common words, especially months of the year, such as
jeanuary or jenary, February, Mach, aprel or apriel, and octobar. His capital
M, with its overhanging serifs, and especially his uneven spidery pinwheels,
are unusual enough to be distinctly his.

One of his simplest designs is on the stone for Daniel Case, who died in
Simsbury in 1733. In addition to the smooth, bat-like wings, this stone has
features common to many others in this group, such as hollowed-out eyes, tri-
angular nose, and a very long chin with prominent teeth. Unquestionably
"The Bat" was attempting to imitate the first Thomas Johnson, designer of
Connecticut's death's-head stones and deservedly a very popular stonecutter
in Connecticut in the early 1730s.

Fig. 1 Cap^ Joseph Winchel 1743. Suffield.

"The Bat"

103

"The Bat" designed various kinds of borders. One of his most attractive,
yet meaningless, borders is on the stone for Cattron Vets (Catherine Viets)
who died in Simsbury in 1734 (Fig. 2). Occasionally one finds a modified
diamond border, or a border too complex to describe, but the design which
apparently pleased him most was one consisting of a coarse, undulating stalk
with alternating round bulbous masses, faint - indeed very faint -- reminders
of the figs so often skillfully carved by the master stonecutters of early Bos-
ton. Figs in the early days were symbols of Paradise, or Land of Plenty; but
unaware of their significance, "The Bat" substituted his plain round masses,
signifying nothing. On the stone for Joseph Addams of Simsbury, dated 1741
(Fig. 3), the round bulbs or figs were, by a few simple alterations, converted
into a series of graceful swans. A similar border appears on the stone for
Elijah Owen, who died in East Granby in 1741, and also the stone for Anna
Lx)omis (1744) in Bloomfield (Fig. 4).

Fig. 2 Cattron Vets 1734. Simsbury.

104

Connecticut Gravestones

About 1745, in keeping with the general trend away from gruesomeness to
more pleasing moods, "The Bat" began to use a different design on most of
his stones. Just as Thomas Johnson abandoned his skulls in favor of heavenly
angels, so "The Bat" attempted to get away from his characteristic reminder
of death. The scalloped lower borders on the bat wings tend to disappear,
and the wings themselves, instead of remaining smooth, were carved with
heavy strands of wavy lines. Again "The Bat" failed to come up to the stan-
dards of an accomplished craftsman. These strands, supposed to represent
angel's wings, were sometimes carved to surround the whole skull, but some-
times, as on the stone for Abraham Sidewelt of Simsbury, dated 1745, they
were confined to the lower face so that they look more like images of Santa
Claus. It is on this style of gravestone, and especially after 1749, that one
finds many backward a's. For example, on the stone for Mrs. Ahinoam Alder-
man of East Granby, who died in 1750, all nine a's are backward.

PSEPH

Fig. 3 Joseph Addams 1741. Simsbury.

"The Bat"

105

7 A

Fig. 4 Anna Loomis 1744. Bloomneld.

At one time it was thought that these later stones, because of such varia-
tions, were designed by a different stonecutter. The original bat design is sel-
dom found after 1745, but the chief reason for attributing "whisker" or
"bearded" stones to "The Bat" is that nearly all of them continue to show his
characteristic borders, shallow uneven lettering, triangular noses, long chins
and especially his uneven spidery pinwheels. There are two stones in
Simsbury, standing side by side that are almost duplicates except for the
designs at the top - one shows a bat, the other a bewhiskered face. The
simplest explanation is that "The Bat" continued to carve gravestones, but fre-
quently he left the lettering to an apprentice or a son with the customary new
and strange ideas of a younger generation.

A few stones are unusual enough to warrant special consideration. There
is one in Suffield for Robert Granger (Fig. 5), a child who died in 1756, that
has a mixture of normal and backward a's. At the top of this stone, in almost
indecipherable letters resembling hieroglyphics, appears the inscription,
"Jerusha Phelps ye wife of Abel." She died in 1736 and her grave in Po-
quonock is marked by a stone with a typical early bat design. It appears that

106

Connecticut Gravestones

"The Bat," when carving a stone for Jerusha, botched the first few words, then
carved a second stone, the one now in Poquonock. The first was probably
cast aside in disgust on his pile of discarded stones. After twenty years it was
reclaimed and recarved for the Granger child in Suffield, as though any left-
over stone was good enough for him. No one even bothered to delete the
Phelps inscription. This may be the only gravestone in the world with two
unrelated names inscribed on the face of it.^

The most elaborate stone of all, that for Simon Chapman, Jr., (1737) (Fig.
6), an attorney of Windsor, has a double border as well as a great deal of
careful, detailed work, yet it still retains all the characteristics of the more
crude and simple stones. Unlike most "Bat" stones, this one, his best, is still
in very good condition. In contrast to this handsome piece of intricate handi-
work, there is the fiendish skull design on the stone for Mrs. Lydia Gay
(1757) of Suffield (Fig. 7). Except for the borders, spidery pinwheels, and
particularly the shallow, uneven lettering, one would scarcely believe that the
Gay stone was engraved by the same man who made the Chapman stone.
But the less the Gay stone is described the better, for its weirdness almost
defies description. It is difficult to say whether "The Bat" was elated or
depressed when he created this design.

Fig. 5 Robert Granger 1756. Suffield.

"The Bat"

107

Fig. 6 Simon Chapman Jr. 1737. Palisados Burying Ground, Windsor.

Fig. 7 Lydia Gay 1757. Suffield.

108

Connecticut Gravestones

NOTES

1. This is an entertaining idea, but probably is only a conceit of Dr. Caulfield's. It seems very
unlikely that this carver would introduce such an innovation, but rather that his stones are
only those of a rured folk craftsman producing simple winged skulls. Indeed on some of his
more elaborate stones such as that for Simon Chapman, Jr., (Fig. 6) we see definite layers
of feathers certainly not found on any mammal such as a bat. The only stone of which we
are aware on which bat wings are used as a major feature of the lunette is one in Beccles
(East Anglia) where the wings are present around a central hour glass.

2. Caulfield's annotated copy has a notation in the right margin saying "one in Greece."

Fig. 1 Hannah Enas 1760. Union. Carved by Josiah Manning.

The Mannings 109

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES VIII
The Mannings

Josiah Manning (1725-1806)

Josiah Manning, by far the most influential stonecutter in eastern Connec-
ticut during the second half of the eighteenth century, was born in Hopkin-
ton, Massachusetts, in 1725. About 1730 his father bought a farm near
Merrick's Brook in the East Parish of Windham, now Scotland, where Josiah
spent his boyhood. His handwriting, though somewhat crude, is easily
legible, indicating that he received at least a primary education. After he
married Mary Cook in 1746, he lived for awhile in Canterbury, where he
made a little money on a few real estate transactions. In February, 1748, for
example, he bought one acre of land in Scotland for £30 and sold it the same
year for £60; and another plot for which he paid £100 was sold the next day
for £150. Such opportunities could not have been too plentiful, else he
would have stayed where he was; but instead, about August, 1748, he bought
a house and settled down in the northwest corner of Norwich (now Franklin)
on the road that leads to Windham. One of his earliest Norwich records dis-
closes that in July, 1748, he was paid 8s for digging the grave of Samuel
Edgerton. He appears in Joseph Badcock's account book, 1759, as borrowing
money to pay his "scool rates" and other taxes, carting wood, and also doing
stone work such as underpinning the mill and constructing a stone wall. But
on the debit side of the ledger, he had to pay 12s when his hogs got loose and
had a feast in Mr. Badcock's cornfield. On May 17, 1760, Manning was in
Windham Court, being ordered to pay £1-12-8 and costs for defaulting on a
note. Mrs. Manning was equally interesting, if not more so. She repeatedly
read her Bible from cover to cover, and before she died she had read it
seventy-two times. Meanwhile, in her leisure moments, she bore sixteen
children, including three pairs of twins.

It is not known when Josiah started cutting gravestones.^ Having been a
gravedigger, his next step upward was the more lucrative trade of stone
engraving. On the other hand, many of his early stones show a definite Ger-
shom Bartlett influence. At all events, he probably was not in business

110 Connecticut Gravestones

before 1761, because his father's gravestone, which is dated 1760, was made
by Bartlett. Josiah, however, signed his name to the gravestone for Hannah
Scripture of West Wilhngton, and initialed I. M. the stone for Hannah Enas
(Fig. 1) of Union, both dated 1760. Although the letters on these stones are
not remarkable, they still are much better than one would expect of a novice,
indicating that he had become a fairly good engraver early in the 1760s.
Another stone that he is definitely known to have made, inasmuch as it is
signed "J. Manning," is the one in Norwichtown for "Simeon Wartermans
Wife & Child Who Died May 30th 1764 in ye 21d year of her age" (Fig. 2).
Many quaintly spelled words, together with the imitation Bartlett borders,
indicate that this is another of Josiah's early stones. Like the Enas stone, it
shows his peculiar facial design that for some strange reason suddenly be-
came popular in many Connecticut towns between the Woodstocks and Long
Island Sound. This frightened, hooded angel, resembling a modern space
cadet, borders on the ridiculous, yet it somehow caught the public fancy and
remained popular for many years.

Josiah signed at least ten gravestones in Connecticut, and since his signa-
ture was obviously used as an advertisement, most of them are understand-
ably in different towns. They are the stones for Jane Tyler (Fig. 3) in Brook-
lyn (1741), Stephen Durkee in Hampton (1769), Tabitha Hall in Mansfield
(1764), Ebenezer Backus (Fig. 4) (1768) and Simeon Waterman's wife and
child in Norwichtown (Fig. 2) (1764), James Luce in Scotland (1765),
Jonathan Knight (Fig. 5) in Hanover (Sprague) (1770), Hannah Enas (Fig. 1)
in Union (1760), Hannah Scripture in West Willington (1760) and Ebenezer
Smith in Woodstock (1767). Manning is known to have made gravestones
also for John Fitch of Windham (1760), Elisha Hurlbutt of Norwich (ca.
1772),^ Jonathan Huntington, Esquire, of Windham (1773), Ebenezer Eaton
of Pomfret (1777), Dorothy Brewster of Norwich (1779) and Dr. John Barker
of Franklin (1791). In addition, his name has been found as a creditor in the
estates of Phineas Allen of Mansfield (1778), Benjamin Badcock of Norwich
(1764), James Moulton, Jr., of Windham (1787), Mary Payn of Lebanon
(1778), Jonathan Peck of Norwich (1779), Joshua Ripley of Windham (1789)
and Jonathan Rudd of Norwich (1772),

The Mannings

111

tirAz-

Fig. 2 Simeon Waterman's wife and child 1762.
Norwichtown Burying Ground, Norwich.

112

Connecticut Gravestones

From the gravestones of many of these individuals, one may easily trace
the development of Josiah's style from the rather simple Enas stone (Fig. 1)
to the elaborate stone for Jonathan Knight (Fig. 5). He usually worked with
gray schist, possibly obtained from Bolton or, more likely, from a quarry
nearer home. By 1770 he had abandoned Bartlett borders in favor of his own
or those of John Stevens's designs, mostly scrolls, and his early hooded angel
was changed to another equally peculiar facial design. This later face has a
turned-down, pouting mouth, circular staring eyes and an elaborate wig that
looks like a fancy hairdo. On the Knight stone (Fig. 5) the angel is the
predominant feature, the wings are cut in great detail, the bloated eyes are
quite prominent and the borders are copied from Stevens.^

t-A

:!>?■

'■^^

^ May ijr, i ^ : ,c^S: yj^.'i \

Fig. 3 Jane Tyler 1741. Brooklyn. Photograph by Farbers.

The Mannings

113

Fig. 4 Eben^ Backus Esq.^ 1768. Norwichtown Burying Ground, Norwich.

"t /

/ \

'< v,-'

-7 1-^— (, IM

Fig. 5 Jonathan Knight 1770. Hanover Burying Ground, Sprague.

114

Connecticut Gravestones

During the 1770s Manning worked on a soft, red sandstone, which allowed
him to do his most artistic work. Though dated 1741, the signed stone for
Jane Tyler (Fig. 3) in Brooklyn was probably made about 1770 and is an ex-
cellent example of this pleasing style. Each single letter, with its carefully
engraved serifs, is in itself a work of art, and on such stones one also finds the
best examples of Manning's graceful script. The formal pompadour and side
curls, definite Manning characteristics, are found on nearly all of these red
stones, as are the minister's bands.

Josiah was an ardent patriot. Ellen Douglas Lamed, in her History of
Windham County (Worcester, Mass., 1874-1880), relates that he inscribed
"Liberty and Equality. Down with the Stamp Act" on a stone tablet which he
placed over his door to stimulate the zeal of the passers-by. About the time
of the Revolution, he became acquainted with Vermont marble, and the
easily recognized Manning design is found on many stones in Bennington,
Vermont, and surrounding towns. Indeed, Mrs. Harriette M. Forbes found a

L ^i A N'-? ' I i' ^

■WA

i/nu-'A ■

Fig. 6 Mary Manning 1796. Windham. Photograph by James Slater.

The Mannings

115

ffi ^ ffi<«^wnii>l|iHtfi^ .

J^T^a!^ Hem anif :• Cxf -:
^■fvipnrfs tliat weep

Fig. 7 Josiah Manning 1806. Windham.
Photograph by Farbers of rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

Fig. 8 Josiah Manning 1806. Back of headstone. Windham.
Photograph by James Slater.

116 Connecticut Gravestones

marble stone in Bennington for Jedidiah Dewey, dated 1776, which was
signed "Josiah Manning." Some of these Vermont stones, however, may pos-
sibly have been made by Josiah's sons, who served in the Revolutionary War
and who later used marble for many of their Connecticut stones.

Sometimes it seems that Josiah Manning cut his designs in wholesale lots
and left the inscriptions to be cut by other men. His facial design became so
closely associated with gravestones in eastern Connecticut that many other
stonecutters slavishly copied it, particularly Lebbeus Kimball, Amasa
Loomis, Thatcher Lathrop, Joseph Tucker'', the John Waldens and, naturally,
the Manning boys. To see Josiah's work one should visit Windham. There
lie most of his children, including the three pairs of twins, their graves
marked by a single slab; and there, also, is the stone for his wife, who died in
1796 (Fig. 6). Of all Connecticut stonecutters, Josiah Manning and David
Miller are only two who are known to have made their own gravestones.
Manning's is in Windham and inscribed: "This monument I made in the year
1800; in my 76th year (Figs. 7 and 8)." He died in 1806.

Frederick Manning (1758-1810)

One explanation for the existence of so many gravestones in the Josiah
Manning style is that his only two sons who survived their childhood carried
on the family trade. Frederick was born in Norwich (Franklin) in 1758,
served in the Revolutionary War, and married Anne Young of Windham on
July 19, 1781. In 1783 we find him buying "Flower, Rum, Sugar & Cloth"
from a store in Norwich, paying for them partly in manual labor, especially by
mowing hay. That same year he and his brother bought a little shop in Nor-
wich; and the following year he bought part of his father's land in Franklin
near "Manning's Bridg [across] Shawtucket River." No doubt Frederick was
cutting gravestones when very young, but the earliest record so far discovered
is dated Norwich, October 17, 1780, when he was twenty-two years old. His
earliest stones are difficult to distinguish from those made by his father, espe-
cially since they both worked on the same quality of schist.

About 1786, having sold his half of the Norwich shop to his brother, he
moved to Windham, where he went into business for himself. During
February and March, 1792, he inserted this advertisement in The Phenix or

The Mannings

Windham Herald:

117

FREDERICK MANNING
STONE-CUTTER

Informs the public that he carries on the above business, at his shop in
Windham, in all its branches - Makes Tomb-tables, either of marble or Bolton
stone - Grave-stones, of do. - Side-boards of marble - Marble Vats, for
painters - Chimney-pieces, &c. - all in the neatest manner - cheap for Cash, or
country produce.

February 16, 1792

8«"

i iii#fti ) ir i ||i||i i %i^^

Fig. 9 Timothy A. Cushman AB 1792.

Nathan Hale Burying Ground, Coventry.

Photograph by Farbers of rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

118

Connecticut Gravestones

Some of Frederick Manning's receipts show atrocious spelling, and on
many of them he signed his name as "Fradrick Manning." So far as we know,
he signed only one gravestone^, that for Timothy A. Cushman (Fig. 9), who
died in Coventry in 1792. This attractive marble stone has on it a design very
much like Josiah's, except that the eyes appear as mere slits between some
puffy lids. An unusual gravestone found in Hampton for Chloe Griffin and
her eleven-week-old son (Fig. 10) is probably a Frederick Manning stone.

On November 3, 1800, Frederick signed a note in which he promised to
pay "twenty five Dollars in my work at my trade in Stone Cutting at two dol-
lars per day or otherwise agreed on & be bound my self & horse after
reasonable notice." He died in Woodstock, October 21, 1810, aged fifty-two
years, while temporarily away from home. The inventory of his estate is
more interesting for the references to the furniture he owned than for any-
thing pertaining to his trade. Some of this furniture was made by Amos Al-
len.

Fig. 10 Chloe Griffin and son 1784.
Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.

The Mannings 119

The following is a list of references to Frederick Manning found in the
Probate Records of the Connecticut State Library. His name usually appears
as being paid for gravestones:

Simon Brewster of Norwich, 1780, £2-0-0

Ezekiel Gary of Windham, 1782, £2-1-0

Reverend Nathan Avery of Stonington, 1783, £5-0-0

Jabez Huntington of Windham, 1783, £4-2-0

Nathaniel Kingsbury of Norwich, 1785, two pairs, £5-0-0

Joseph Hunt of Norwich, 1786, £2-0-0

Sylvanus ChamberHn of Woodstock, 1788, £2-8-0

James Flint of Windham, 1788, £3-9-0

Jabez Fitch of Windham, 1789, £15-0-0

James Stedman of Hampton, 1789, £18-0-8

Jonathan Badcock of Windham, 1790, £2-5-0

John Huntington of Windham, 1792, £2-10-0, paid in 1798

Captain Stephen Lyon and wife of Woodstock, 1792, £5-5-0

Abraham Dewey of Lebanon, 1792, £2-1-0

[ ] Gary (father of John) of Windham, 1798, £2-1-0

Nathaniel Marcy of Woodstock, 1799, $26.67

Ehas Mason of Woodstock, 1802, $15.00

Rockwell Manning (1760-1806)

Rockwell Manning, who was born in Norwich about 1760, started cutting
gravestones as soon as he was strong enough to swing a heavy hammer. Mr.
Kendall P. Hayward called my attention to a stone in Scotland for Abigail
Manning (Fig. 11), who died in 1770, and which was proudly inscribed "Made
by Rockwell Manning Aged 13 Years." This stone for his grandmother shows
that the boy had learned his lessons well, for it is a true copy of the pop-eyed
angel stones that were so frequently made by his father about that time. Not
far away is a small schist tablet, no doubt also carved when the boy was young
and morbid; but this one was made to mark the grave of an infant, possibly a
sibling (Fig. 12):

quick from the womb

unto the tomb
my Body here is laid

& happy he this
world may see

whose debt is
soonest paid

120 Connecticut Gravestones

In 1783, when he was twenty-three years old, Rockwell married Sarah
Ensworth (1761-1851) of Canterbury, and that same year he and his brother,
Frederick, bought a shop "on the Highway from the Green to the Landing
Place" in Norwich, but this partnership did not last long because soon there-
after Rockwell owned the entire shop. In 1785 he bought another small lot
situated, appropriately, "on the Highway that leads to the Burying Ground,"
and on this lot he built a house, barn and hog pen. He then placed the follow-
ing advertisement in the Norwich Packet :

ROCKWELL MANNING
STONE-CUTTER AND ENGRAVER

Respectfully informs the public, that he carries on the Stone-Cutting
and Engraving business in all its various branches, at his house in the City of
Norwich, and at the house of Mr. William Bingham's in Canterbury, all orders
left with him or with Mr. Bingham will be punctually executed — Any that are
desirous of having the American Marble, which makes elegant TABLES, may
be furnished by said Manning. The smallest favours will be thankfully acknow-
ledged.
Norwich, June 16, 1785

Like the other Mannings, Rockwell had a lucrative gravestone trade.
Despite an occasional misspelled word, most of his numerous signed receipts
for gravestones reveal a very neat handwriting, indicating a better-than-
average education which no doubt contributed to his popularity. He
engraved his name in flowing script on the gravestone for John Hurlbut (Fig.
13) in East Hartford, dated 1778. Rockwell's early stones were made from
schist and, though carefully cut, they are very difficult to distinguish from
those made by his father, Josiah. But when he worked on marble, Rockwell
broke out of the Manning rut and used a design distinctly his own. The Sarah
Gardiner (1777) gravestone in Wickford, Rhode Island, which was inscribed
"Made by R Manning in Norwich" is a duplicate of the Benjamin Butler stone
(Fig. 14) in Norwichtown (1787); and this style is fairly common throughout
eastern Connecticut. Rockwell was one of the very few stonecutters in New
England who took the trouble to finish the edges of his stones, and for this
reason it seems safe to attribute to him such unusual stones as the one in
Hampton,^ with its delicate flowers carved along the edges, for Miss Lucy
Howard (Fig. 15) "who died we trust a sincere Christion" in 1784.

The Mannings

121

!Bv achels face aadl^ealxis
^ |l^ Mar jf 5 Baatet part *

i^%

Fig. 11 Abigail Manning 1770. Scotland.
Photograph by Farbers of rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

122 Connecticut Gravestones

1 "?

.' V, ^

, J'

\
h

Fig. 12 "Womb to Tomb" stone. Scotland.

The Mannings, and particularly Rockwell, were fond of carving birds on
gravestones, inasmuch as most birds were symbols of the soul. The peacock
was the symbol of immortality, the phoenix the symbol of the Resurrection,
and the cock the symbol of eternal vigilance. Occasionally one finds these
birds on a footstone (there is one in Ellington),^ as though they were used for
trademarks. It is now impossible to know what the Mannings had in mind
when they carved their birds, and especially since it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish their peacocks from ordinary ducks.^

About 1788, flush with success, Rockwell Manning bought more land "on
the little Plain In Chelsea Society in Norwich ... on the straight road so
called leading from the Town Plot to the Landing." He also bought "a Man-
tion House Barn and Corn House" with 300 acres of the Ensworth property
on the west bank of the Quinebaug River in Canterbury for £400.

But about 1793, when he was only thirty-three years old, Rockwell's finan-
cial ship started veering towards the rocks. Sensing disaster, he transferred
"for love and affection," plus £100, practically all of his property in Norwich
and Canterbury to his minor children, Mansur, aged ten, and Sally, aged five.

The Mannings

123

Sometime before 1796 he moved from Norwich to Canterbury. During 1796
and 1797 he would not, or could not, pay numerous judgements, varying in
amounts from $9.48 to $119.38. The sheriff, though legally empowered "to
take the Body of said Manning & him commit unto the Keeper of the Goal,"
seized some of his property instead -- property which he had forgotten to
transfer to the children, or which had not been transferred in time.

Despite his numerous difficulties, Rockwell continued to make grave-
stones. There is a marble stone in the Cleveland cemetery in Canterbury for
John Johnson (1804) and inscribed "made by R. Manning." It is a willow and
urn design, and Rockwell received $40 for it. It is one of the last of his
known gravestones.

<Ji

Fig. 13 Lieu^ John Hurlbut 1778. Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.
Photograph by Farbers.

124

Connecticut Gravestones

^ In ! ['-iiiory of Yi^"\
iBKIlI.iMINFUTLEB

giniiiBfiiidrisJoDe i-f' M

Fig. 14 Benjamin Butler 1787. Norwichtown Burying Ground, Norwich.

Fig. 15 Lucy Howard 1784. South Burying Ground, Hampton.

The Mannings 125

Rockwell Manning died in Canterbury, February 3, 1806, like so many
other stonecutters of his time, insolvent. The inventory of his estate listed
two marble and some Bolton schist gravestones, all valued at $13.50. His
tools, including stone chisels, stone hammers, compasses, a stone adz and a
stone scraper, were appraised from five to twenty-five cents apiece. His total
assets came to $208.43. Since he was only forty-five years old when he died,
undoubtedly some chronic illness accounts for most of his misfortunes.

The following is a list of Rockwell Manning items taken mostly from the
Probate Records at the Connecticut State Library. Dates are from grave-
stones or probate records.

1770, Abigail Manning, Scotland. Signed stone (Fig. 11).
1770, Sarah Gardiner, Wickford, Rhode Island. Signed stone.
1778, John Hurlbut, East Hartford, Signed stone (Fig. 13).

1784, Reverend Benjamin Lord, Norwich. Table stone. Paid £13. Gravestones not
mentioned.

1785, David Breed, Norwich, £5-10-0 for 2 pairs of gravestones.
1785, Samuel Gager, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £3.
1785, John Hough, Norwich. Paid £4 "for two pare of Grave Stones."
1785, Elisha Edgerton, Jr., Norwich. Paid £6-0-0 for gravestones.

1785, James Huntington, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £4-7-0.

1785, Asa Waterman, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £2-6-6.

1786, Joseph Denison, 2nd, Stonington. Signed receipt for gravestones, £3-10-0.

1787, Jeremiah Clement, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones. £3-5-0.
1787, Solomon Malbone, Norwich. Paid £3-3-0 for gravestones.

1787, Thomas Danforth, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £3-2-0.

1788, Daniel Calkins, Norwich. Paid £2-0-0 for gravestones.

1788, Deacon Joseph Colt, Lyme. Signed receipt for gravestones, £2 or 8 silver dol-
lars.

1788, Thomas Fanning, Groton. Signed receipt for gravestones, £2-2-0.
1788, William Loring, Norwich. Paid £5-10-0 for gravestones.

1788, William Rockwell, Norwich. Paid £5-7-0. Gravestones not mentioned.

1789, Captain Asa Avery, Groton. Signed receipt for £4-10-0. Gravestones not men-
tioned.

1790, Abel Brewster, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £3-3-6.

1791, Captain Jacob Hazen, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £4-12-0.

1792, Lucy Waterman, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £2-1-6.

1793, Nathan Chappel, Jr. and Mrs. Susannah Chappel, Norwich. Signed receipt for 2
pairs of gravestones, £4-10-0.

1794, Joseph Reynolds, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £3-5-0.

1794, Captain Ebenezer Baldwin, Bozrah. Signed receipt for gravestones, £4-2-0.

1794, Charlotte and Bernice Whiting, Norwich. Signed receipt for gravestones, £5-

12-0 (in Ebenezer Whiting estate).

1794, Captain Thomas Robinson and four of his children, Stonington. Signed receipt

for gravestones, "£10-4-0 or 34 Spanish milled Dollars."

17%, Zebulon Edgerton, Franklin. Paid £0-1-4. Gravestones not mentioned.

126 Connecticut Gravestones

1798, Ebenezer Gallup, Plainfield. Signed receipt for gravestones, £3-10-0.

1798, Nathaniel Kazar, Lisbon. Signed receipt for gravestones, $10.00.

1799, Phinehas Leffingwell and wife, Norwich. Signed receipt for two pairs of grave-
stones, $20.00.

1801, William Bradford, 2nd, Montville. Signed receipt for gravestones, $15.00.
1804, John Johnson, Canterbury. Signed stone.

NOTES

1. Josiah Manning may have started carving gravestones as early as 1749 or 1750. In the small
Gager burying ground in North Franklin there is a small stone for Caleb Manning, Josiah's
son. This stone may have been carved by John Huntington, but may possibly also be the
very early work of Josiah, who would have seen the work of Huntington all around him. In
the same graveyard is a stone for Josiah's two daughters, Leah and Rachel, dated 1756.
However, the design work on this stone is very sophisticated and not of the type that Josiah
used on his early stones for children, so that it is almost certainly backdated. Thus he may
have carved a few simple stones prior to 1760, but Dr. Caulfield's suggested date is prob-
ably correct for the start of his major work.

2. This stone is not now present in Norwichtown. There is, however, a signed stone dated
1763 in the Bungay burying ground in West Woodstock for Elisha Hurlbutt.

3. The border panels of the Knight stone may indeed have been copied from a Stevens stone,
but if so they are not the type of border panel design that the Mannings usually copied
from Stevens. The design work found on the Jane Tyler stone (Fig. 3) is of the Stevens
type usually adopted by the Manning carvers.

4. But see discussion of Aaron Haskins in Connecticut Gravestones XV.

5. Two additional stones signed "Fradrick Manning" are now known. One of these, that for
Ephram Trowbridge 1773 (Abington burying ground, Fomfret), is on the same yellow
sandstone as that for Jane Tyler in Brooklyn (signed by Josiah Manning). The design work
and lettering are identical on the two stones! The third signed stone, for Daniel Talcott
1807, is an unimpressive urn-willow schist in the West Willington burying ground.

6. In the South burying ground at the junction of Routes 6 and 97.

7. Footstone for Charles Elsworth (1776).

8. This is Dr. Caulfield with tongue in cheek. The Manning birds might be taken for crowing
cocks rather than peacocks, but one need not be an ornithologist to recognize that they
look nothing like ducks.

9. The following are additional documented stones that have been discovered since Dr.
Caulfield's article.

Signed stones by Josiah Manning:

1. Ebenezer Smith 1767. Bungay burying ground. West Woodstock.

2. Stephen Fuller 1767. Old Litchfield burying ground, Hampton.
Probated stones by Rockwell Manning:

1. Lieut. Ebenezer Avery 1781. Col. Ledyard burying ground, Groton.

127
The Mannings

2. Ensign Daniel Avery 1781. Morgan-Avery burying ground, Groton.

3. Capt. Simeon Allyn 1781. Allyn's Point burying ground, Ledyard.

4. Abigail Denison 1784. Packard burying ground, Groton.

5. Asia Perkins 1781. Starr burying ground, Groton.

6. Luke Perkins 1781. Starr burying ground, Groton.

Note that most of these probated stones are for soldiers killed at the Groton Heights
massacre.

128

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 1 William Belcher 1732. Pachaug Burying Ground, Griswold.

Fig. 2 Samuel Post Jr. 1746. Norwichtown Burying Ground, Norwich.
Photograph by Farbers.

The Collins Family 129

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES IX
The Collins Family

Benjamin Collins (1691-1759)

In February, 1735, when Benjamin Collins bought some land on Chestnut
Hill on the west side of the road leading from "Lebanon Old parrish meeting
house ... to the Crank meeting house so called," he described himself as a
"joyner . . . late of Taunton." He was to continue as a cabinetmaker the rest
of his life, for every now and then he bought new files, gimlets and chest
locks, and even when he was stricken with a fatal illness at the age of sixty-
eight, he was in the process of making "one high Case of Drawers." Unques-
tionably this previous manual training contributed to his skill as a stonecut-
ter, because many of his gravestones tend to show artistic designs. Having
been trained to work on wood, however, he developed a touch that was much
too delicate for stone, with the result that his inscriptions are so shallow that
many of them are difficult to read. For about twenty-five years he was a
popular gravestone cutter throughout most of east-central Connecticut, more
particularly in Hebron, Lebanon, Norwichtown, Pachaug and Windham.

Having been a prominent tradesman in Lebanon, it was natural that he
should have been well acquainted with Jonathan Trumbull. He worked for
Trumbull at various times after 1735; and he frequently traded at Trumbull's
store, where he discounted notes, sold hogs, and in return bought such
household necessities as brooms, molasses, medicines and rum. Trumbull
also bought a good deal of furniture from another cabinetmaker named Wil-
liam Collins, who may have been Benjamin's brother.

In September, 1746, Benjamin's house burned down with all his household
goods, including a bundle of paper money which a son had hidden in a mat-
tress. The Connecticut General Assembly granted some relief for this
catastrophe.

Very proud of his ability as a stone engraver, Collins signed his name to
more than twenty stones. Frequently he included his address, as on a stone
in Tolland which was "Made by Benjamin Collins of Lebanon Crank," but at
other times he signed merely "B. Collins Sculp," as though he thought that

130 Connecticut Gravestones

everyone should have known where he lived. One serious-minded
genealogist, finding "Benjamin Collins, Lebanon Crank" carved on the grave-
stone of an ancestor, explained to his readers that "Lebanon Crank" referred
to a town, and not to Benjamin Collins.

Most of Benjamin's signed gravestones are dated between 1726 and 1755.
He generally used large slabs of dark gray schist, cut in various shapes, al-
though he favored stones with pointed tops. When he carved a facial design,
it was always an angel rather than a skull. It was a homely angel with small,
round, close-set eyes, a bulbous nose, and a turned-down mouth. On his ear-
lier stones the face is nearly circular and surrounded by wings that look like
feathers on an Indian chief; on his later stones the face is more oval and the
wings are more conventional. In the Pachaug burying ground only two of
twelve stones have segmented wings.

In those towns where Collins's stones are found most frequently, one also
finds a few stones with faces carved in relief. Most of these protruding faces,
however, have long narrow noses, half-closed eyes and turned-up mouths.
They appear, therefore, to have been cut by someone else, probably Obadiah
Wheeler.^ I have found only one stone with a protruding face that I believe
can be safely attributed to Collins. It is the stone for William Belcher (Fig.
1) in Pachaug, dated 1732.

Not only did Collins invariably cut borders, but his border designs vary con-
siderably from stone to stone. A few of them appear to be mere exercises in
plane geometry without any suggestion of symbolic significance. At times he
seemed compelled to use his compass. The best geometric figures and
geometric borders are on the unsigned Sarah Dean 1746 stone in the Plain-
field burying ground. The signed stone for Simeon Mearitt (1739) in Colum-
bia has a border made up entirely of twenty circles. Most of Collins's circles,
enclosing a plain six-petaled flower, are arranged alternately on a curving
stalk as though they were meant to represent flowers growing on a vine.
Once in a while these circles were converted into rosettes, which were usually
symbols of paradise. One often finds a series of small leaves alternating with
bunches of grapes. More rarely one finds a column of four-leaved clovers, or
even a column of tulips (Elisha Belcher, Pachaug 1729). The most artistic
flowery border was cut on the stone for Benjamin Collins, Jr., who died in

The Collins Family 131

1749. The border on the stone for WiUiam Belcher (Fig. 1) in Pachaug was
cut to represent bricks, as though the whole stone was meant to represent the
face of a brick tomb.

Benjamin Collins's inscriptions are fairly long and, as mentioned before,
very shallow and difficult to read. The lettering is not unusual for the period
except for an occasional elevated g. More often than not, the first few words,
such as IN MEMORY OF, are capitalized.

On about ten or twelve stones Collins carved no circles, faces or wings, but
instead he carved an artistic floral design. One cannot distinguish any par-
ticular symbols in these designs except the heart which he carved on nearly
all of his stones. Perhaps he was not concerned with hidden symbolic mean-
ings, but merely thought that flowers were appropriate for gravestones. Oc-
casionally, however, one finds a crescent, a sphere, or an hour-glass. The
signed stone for Ruth Thomas in Lebanon^ was designed one-third for the
angel with wings, a middle third for the floral design, and the lowest third for
the inscription.

Although he died relatively poor, Collins appears to have been fairly well
paid for his stones. The only significant probate record found so far discloses
that the estate of Samuel Post, Jr. (Fig. 2) of Norwich paid "Sixteen pounds
old Tenor in full for two pair of Tomb Stons for the said Deceased & his
Daughter" in 1748.

Benjamin Collins died April 29, 1759, and was buried in Lebanon Crank,
now Columbia. His inventory included chisels, planes, saws, gouges, com-
passes and gravestones. The illustrious Eleazer Wheelock witnessed the sig-
nature on the will; and it was in Jonathan Trumbull's store that the widow,
Elizabeth Collins, bought her mourning weeds.

Gravestones signed by Benjamin Collins
Hannah Tyler. Pachaug, 1726.
Stephen Tucker. Pachaug, 1726.
James Danielson. Danielson, 1729.
Elizabeth Gager. Columbia, 1730.
Simeon Mearitt. Columbia, 1739.
Joseph Coit. Pachaug, 1741.
Obadiah Hosford. Hebron, 1741.
Jacob Baker. Tolland, 1742 (Fig. 3).
Mary Tyler. Pachaug, 1742.
Mary Bruster. Scotland, 1743.

132

Connecticut Gravestones

Timothy Peirce. Plainfield, 1744.

Joshua Huntington. Norwichtown, 1745.

Hannah Belcher. Pachaug, 1745.

Hannah Tucker. Pachaug, 1746.

Samuel Post, Jr., Norwichtown, 1746 (Fig. 2).

Humphrey Davenport. Coventry, 1751.

Ruth Thomas. Lebanon, 1753.

Jonathan Brewster. Scotland, 1753.

Ebenezer Peck. Franklin, 1755.

Abigail Griswold. Norwichtown, 1754.

Marsh (?). Plainfield, date?

''-iZLjl.

''il,

Fig. 3 Jacob Baker 1742. Tolland. Photograph by Farbers.

The Collins Family

133

Julius Collins (1728-1758)

In many eastern Connecticut towns, particularly in Hampton,^ there are a
number of stones which resemble Benjamin Collins's stones in nearly every
detail, except that they are much too crude to have been made by him.
Perhaps they were made by one of his sons, for at least two of them are
known to have taken up the gravestone trade.

Julius Collins, one of the sons who followed in his father's footsteps, was
born December 29, 1728. He was probably married about 1746, because he
then bought cloth, thread and tape from Ichabod Robinson's store. He also
bought cups, saucers and an almanac from Jonathan Trumbull's store. Julius
owned a small farm in Lebanon Crank on the west side of the highway, near
his father's home.

Fig. 4 Richard Curtice 1739. Episcopal Burying Ground, Hebron.

134

Connecticut Gravestones

So far as is now known, Julius signed only two gravestones - one for
Richard Curtice (Fig. 4), who died in Hebron in 1739/ and the other for
Robert White, Jr. (Fig. 5), who died in Stafford in 1746. The former stone is
inscribed in capital letters, the latter in small letters. Both stones, although
somewhat different in style, resemble stones made by Benjamin Collins.
Were it not for the signatures, they could easily be mistaken for the father's
work.

Julius died in 1758 at Stillwater, New York, aged twenty-nine, while fight-
ing with the Army. His probate papers include a pitiful document concerning
some petty charges for food, drink and washing while he was dying. He left
his wife, Priscilla, six small children and more debts than his estate was
worth. His seven acres of land were parcelled out in square rods to his
numerous creditors; and the several rooms in his little house were divided
among six creditors, all six having free access to and from their rooms "at all
times." Like his father, Julius was also a cabinetmaker. His inventory in-
cluded a turning lathe, two fine hand-saws, breast bits, chisels and planes, as
well as some table legs and fifty-two feet of whitewood boards.

Fig. 5 Robert White Jun*" 1746. Old Stafford Burying Ground, Stafford.
Photograph by Farbers of rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

The Collins Family 135

Zerubbabel Collins (1733-1797)

On October 4, 1733, Benjamin and Elizabeth Collins were blessed with a
fifth son, and then afflicted him with the name Zerubbabel, after a minor
"begat" in the First Book of Chronicles. But the boy quickly overcame this
handicap and, being quick to learn and clever with his hands, he eventually
became a much more skillful stonecutter than his father. Inasmuch as he was
the favorite son, he was probably in partnership with his father, because in
1756 he gave his note to Ichabod Robinson to pay some of his father's debts.
When his father died in 1759, Zerubbabel inherited the family farm with in-
structions to provide suitably for the comfort of his mother. This he no doubt
continued to do, for when she purchased goods in Robinson's store, the bill
was paid "by hir son Zerub."

Very likely he was making gravestones at an early age, but since none of
these stones has as yet been identified, it is not possible now to describe his
early style. He probably made the gravestone for his father (Fig. 6), although
the facial design on this stone somewhat resembles his father's work. After
1759, however, when working independently, Zerubbabel developed a style
very much his own. It is seen on the gravestone for his son who died in 1770,
and though it is easy to find many variations of this design, it remained essen-
tially the same as long as Zerubbabel cut gravestones.

In 1763, having lost a lawsuit with Jonathan Trumbull, Zerubbabel paid "5
piggs" on his account; and in 1775, he got some free publicity when the story
of some cattle, having died from eating wild cherry leaves near his home, was
published in the newspapers throughout the state. When he came to ap-
preciate the value of marble as a medium for gravestones and wishing to be
near the chief source of supply, Zerubbabel joined the migration of eastern
Connecticut families to Vermont. In 1778 he sold "the Farm or Lot of Land I
now live on" in Lebanon Crank and moved to Shaftsbury, Vermont, In the
lovely, well-kept graveyards throughout southwestern Vermont may be seen
many of his attractive stones. One sees them in profusion in Shaftsbury and
in Old Bennington, and they occur at least as far north as Poultney. There
can be little doubt about his style at this period of his life, for he proudly
signed his name on the stone for Mehetable Hubbel (Bennington, 1770) (Fig.
7) and also on the stone for Mary Cochran (Fig. 8), "who after performing

136

Connecticut Gravestones

the Endearing Offices of the congugal Hfe" died in Bennington in 1777.

But in the late 1700s Vermont was still sparsely settled, so Zerubbabel,
excellent craftsman that he was, returned to Connecticut on many occasions
to take orders for his work. In the Litchfield Monitor, February 29, 1792,
there appeared the following notice:

FOR SALE. A few sets of Marble Tomb Stones of a good quality ~ Also, Mul-
lars [or pestles] and Marbles for Painters.

"^ Jl hh:- MomimGnt,

AJ S'/i(.rc:c] , to..t Jlc '^m,

'/J men ioy y . oh mw

Who (hcdMm'i

Fig. 6 Benjamin Collins 1759. Columbia. Photograph by Farbers.

The Collins Family

137

A,»

i.X.

h(!ub.i i 1':'

*'^ " '-m'-lTin \'"\nhh^l' XA'^'io^" v^

Fig. 7 Mehetabel Hubbel 1770. Bennington, Vt. Photograph by Farbers.

138

Connecticut Gravestones

This advertisement was probably inserted by Zerubbabel Collins inasmuch
as Mr. Kendall P. Hayward found a marble stone in Salisbury for Jacob
Galusha, signed "Z. Collins Sculpt. Shaftsbury, Vt." and dated 1792. The
numerous gray schist stones with Zerubbabel's designs and dated after 1778
were undoubtedly made when he was in Connecticut on one of his temporary
visits.^

IN MENiC^RY
pjNr M.\.RY COCHRAN, 'he ' X;

l^.-'T-

n^ri .

Ot' I'-IC

life; As the cn.'/y:r':j /:7S/7Cti'-i

f LA the -cv/ .v:. - or:;7/o:L' ^S

hikAi

Fig. 8 Mary Cochran 1777. Bennington, Vt. Photograph by Farbers.

The Collins Family

139

Zerubbabel Collins's marble gravestones are very pleasing to the eye.
Like his father, he abhorred a vacant space on a stone, so one finds all sorts
of objects -- rosettes, shells, feathers, baskets, tassels and many kinds of
leaves, all beautifully arranged and skillfully carved. An excellent example of
his work is seen on Lydia Bennitt's marble gravestone (Fig. 9), which was
sent from Shaftsbury, Vermont, to Columbia, Connecticut, very carefully in-
scribed with its price -- "7. Dollars," No one cut better letters. They are all of
the proper depth and as perfect as if cut from metal type. When one con-
siders that his designs and lettering were done with the simplest of simple
tools, the conclusion is inevitable that Zerubbabel Collins was indeed a
finished artist. He died in Shaftsbury in 1797, aged sixty-four.

In many graveyards in southwestern Vermont one sees numerous stones
that were rather crudely cut but still bearing an obvious resemblance to
Zerubbabel's stones. The style of this imitator rapidly improved, so that by
1800 it was very good. In East Poultney, Vermont, there is a stone for
Mindwell Grant, dated 1800, and signed "E C," which makes one think that
still another Collins, probably Edward, followed up the family trade.^

■-X-

>Xiv

" 'Z. "" j

: --=-^-^=- i

\ \

i / ^V'i 1

Fig. 9 Lydia Bennitt 1791. Columbia.

140 Connecticut Gravestones

NOTES

1. It has now been definitely established that Obadiah Wheeler was the carver of these stones.
See Connecticut Gravestones XVII.

2. This stone is in the Goshen Hill burying ground and dated 1753.

3. There are at least an equal number of these stones in the Nathan Hale (Coventry) burying
ground.

4. This stone is in the Episcopal burying ground.

5. Kendall P. Hayward, Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin, January, 1950. Mrs. Forbes
has brief accounts of Benjamin and Zerubbabel Collins in her Gravestones of Early New
England, (Boston, 1927), 105, 111. The Caulfield copy has written below the word
"undoubtedly" on the last line the following "? no proof found yet." This was a perceptive
caution that should have been in the original article, for his statement that "The numerous
gray schist stones with Zerubbabel's designs and dated after 1778 were undoubtedly made .
... on one of his temporary visits" is incorrect. A number of such stones, obviously copied
from those of Zerubbabel Collins, are scattered in eastern Connecticut burying grounds.
We now have probate evidence that these were carved by Aaron Haskins of Bolton. The
majority of Haskins stones are close copies of the work of the Mannings. His Collins-like
stones appear to have been made when a particularly elaborate stone was wanted. The
only evidence that we have that Zerubbabel may have returned to eastern Connecticut are
his two stones in Columbia, both on Vermont marble. Thus it seems unlikely that Zerub-
babel ever returned to Eastern Connecticut to carve on gray schists after he settled in Ver-
mont.

6. It has now been firmly established that "E C" was a carver by the name of Enos Clark.

Charles Dolph 141

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES X
Charles Dolph (1776-1815)

The Connecticut Historical Society has recently acquired an unusual piece
of engraved stone which was unquestionably intended as a lintel for a
fireplace. Inasmuch as there are no fire burns or remnants of mortar on it, it
was probably never used.

Although stone or brick fireplaces go back to the seventeenth century,
there exist very few written records to indicate that the stones were prepared
by professional craftsmen. The earliest record known to me is dated 1666
when the town of Windsor paid "James Enno for stones for ye town house
hearth 00.03.00 [and] George Griswold for laying ye hearth 00.02.06." The
latter was a professional stonecutter.

In that section of Manchester which is known as Buckland there is an aban-
doned quarry which was once used so commonly for fireplace stones that it
acquired the name of "Jambstone Quarry" and the neighboring territory was
known as "Jambstone Plain." Late in the eighteenth century, fireplace stones
were frequently obtained from marble quarries near Watertown.

The fireplace lintel under consideration, measuring 36 1/2 x 10 1/2 x 9
1/2 inches, is of particular interest because of its unusual carvings. First,
there is a woven cord supported by three pegs and with tassels at each end.
The cord supports two crudely carved fat-legged birds. A Masonic emblem
in the center divides the stonecutter's name - "Charles Dolph" ~ and the year
"1800" appears below the emblem. The engravings have lost much of their
original sharpness as though the stone had been exposed to the weather for a
long time or had been damaged from rough handling when moved from
place to place.

The surname Dolph is an Americanized variation of De Wolf. The Con-
necticut branch of that family settled in Lyme, and some of the descendants
migrated inland to Killingworth, others to Middletown, East Hartford and
Bolton. According to the De Wolf genealogy {Charles D'Wolf by Rev.
Calbraith B. Perry, New York, 1902), "members of nearly all the families of
the sons of Charles [De Wolf] of Middletown took the name Dolph with

142 Connecticut Gravestones

various spellings." Incidentally, in 1750 Joseph Johnson, one of the best of
the early Connecticut stone engravers, sold his "mansion house" in East
Hartford to a Stephen DeWolf who, very likely, was related to the man who
carved the lintel.

Charles Dolph was baptized in the Eastbury parish of Glastonbury (now
Buckingham) on January 14, 1776, son of Benoni and Mary (Presson) Dolph.
A document in the Connecticut State Library reveals that on March 24, 1792,
Daniel Chandler of East Hartford was appointed "guardian to Charles Dolph
a minor aged about 16 years, and son of Benjamin Dolph, late of Glaston-
bury deceased." The "Benjamin" in this instance was probably a clerical error
for "Benoni." It would have been unlikely that there would be two Charles
Dolphs of the same age in the same area in 1792. The record is still more sig-
nificant because this Daniel Chandler inherited his father's "Jambstone
Quarry" and stonecutting business in 1790. This second Daniel Chandler,
however, like so many stonecutters of that period, soon ran into financial dif-
ficulties and moved to Lebanon, New Hampshire, about 1797. Even though
the young Charles Dolph did not stay with Chandler for many years, he must
have stayed long enough to become well acquainted with the business and
with other stonecutters of that region.

The next record of Charles Dolph is dated February 30 (!) 1797, when he
allowed Peter Buckland the use of nine acres of land in Orford Parish
(Manchester); he also allowed Buckland to cut firewood on another thirty-
one-acre lot "for the remainder of his natural life." Inasmuch as Dolph was
then only a few weeks over twenty-one years old, it would appear that these
lots were inherited from his father and that this was his first opportunity to
manage his own affairs. Peter Buckland (1738-1816) was an accomplished
stonecutter who became very popular, particularly in Glastonbury. There he
signed his name to three gravestones and there, too, most of the gray schist
stones dated after 1775 were made by him. His earliest stones, however, ap-
pear to have originated in the Jambstone Quarry.

On January 10, 1798, when he was twenty-two years old, Dolph married
Susannah Lukas; and about a year later Peter Buckland signed a deed which
suggests that he had taken Dolph into partnership. This deed, dated
February 30 (!) 1799, was for sale to Dolph of three pieces of land for £200.

Charles Dolph 143

The first piece included one-half of Buckland's home lot, one-half of his
dwelling house, one-half of his barn, together with "one-half of all the
Priviledges of said Farm." That Peter Buckland should share nearly every-
thing he owned with twenty-three-year-old Dolph makes one believe that
Susannah (Lukas) Dolph was related in some way to Buckland, perhaps
through his first wife, whose surname is now unknown. The theory of partner-
ship between Buckland and Dolph is confirmed by still another document,
dated March 18, 1799, which discloses that they sold eight acres of "our home
lot" to George Cheney for $80.00.

A few months after this last document was signed, Dolph decided to go
into business for himself. On February 24, 1801, Charles Dolph "of Kil-
lingworth" sold his share of the dwelling house and barn in Orford back to
Buckland. Dolph then advertised in the Middlesex Gazette of March 20,
1801:

CHARLES DOLPH

RESPECTFULLY informs the public that he Carries on the STONE
CUTTING-BUSINESS in Killingworth. He will supply any person with any
kind of Stone work, Hearths, Jambs, Mantletrees, Stoves, Grave-Stones, &c.
He expects to remove from this town by the first of May; any person that
wishes to have of his work, by calling immediately, they may have their supply.
He will take white or brown Tow Cloth in part pay.
Killingworth, March 16, 1801.

When Dolph stated that he expected to move from Killingworth on May 1,
1801, he may have been only trying to stimulate business; yet he would hardly
have said this on March 16, 1801, had he not been living in Killingworth at
least a few months (in other words, before December 31, 1800). The lintel,
therefore, appears to have been carved while he lived in Killingworth. The
fact that he placed his name so prominently on it must mean that he intended
to build a house of his own. He probably never thought of building a house
so long as he was comfortably settled in Peter Buckland's home in Orford.
Yet, on the other hand, the stone itself is a fine-grained sandstone and ap-
pears to have originated in the Jambstone Quarry where Dolph worked
before he was married in 1798.

The designs on the lintel suggest that Dolph was a great imitator.
Masonic emblems were often carved on New England gravestones during the

144 Connecticut Gravestones

last quarter of the eighteenth century. The tassels were copied from Peter
Buckland, who used them frequently on gravestones. The lettering is not par-
ticularly unusual except for the curved crossbars on the letters A and H,
which also were the result of Dolph's training under Buckland. The birds
could have been taken from a number of sources such as wallpaper or
crewel-work of the period, but being primarily a stonecutter, Dolph probably
copied them from gravestones made by the Mannings.^ He could have seen
Manning birds in Bolton or Ellington. Peter Buckland never carved birds.

Dolph did not move from Killingworth on May 1, 1801, as he threatened
to do in the advertisement. Instead, on the following September 7, he bought
about one-half an acre on the New Post Road or Stage Road; and later, one
share or 1/100 part of "the new School house or academy so-called . . . near
the meetinghouse." Very little else is known about him while he lived in Kil-
lingworth, and soon he was on the move again.

On June 8, 1802, Charles Dolph "late of Killingworth" paid $100 to Wil-
loughby Lynde of Saybrook for a small lot, less than one-fourth of an acre,
"on the road to Saybrook Point." Within a few months there was a "Dwelling
House thereon," and the location was further described as "on the road to
Hart's Wharf in that part of Saybrook First Society called "the town Plot."

On April 6, 1803, Dolph advertised in the Connecticut Gazette of New
London:

CHARLES DOLPH

RESPECTFULLY informs the public that he carries on the Stone Cut-
ters business, at Saybrook point; where he will supply any person on reasonable
terms, with Hearths, Jambs, Mantletrees, Steps, Under-pinning, Sinks, Stoves,
Oven-Mouths, Tombstones, &c. of Middletown stone. They may be
transported by water to all the neighboring towns, at very little expence.

He has for sale, a good second hand Chaise, in Good repair.

The Subscriber wants to take a smart active Boy, 15 or 16 years old.

Saybrook, March 23 [1803]

Dolph became very popular in the gravestone business after he moved to
Saybrook. His stones are found fairly frequently in towns from Madison to
Old Lyme, and inland as far as Essex and Killingworth. In Westbrook, in par-
ticular, most of the brown stones dated between 1800 and 1814 were made by
him.

Charles Dolph

145

His stones are usually very simple. Occasionally one finds a plain rectan-
gular slab, fully inscribed, but showing no design. More often there is an urn,
as on the stone of Henry Chapman (Westbrook, 1809) (Fig. 1), either plain
or with a few engraved decorations. Rarely, as on the stone for Daniel Hall
of Old Lyme, dated 1813, one finds a tree with leaves represented by
numerous miniature hearts (Fig. 2). Usually the inscription is separated from
the edge of the stone by an undulating line. Dolph seldom, if ever, decorated
his borders.

Fig. 1 Henry Chapman 1809. Westbrook.

146 Connecticut Gravestones

Still another gravestone design, an angel with crown and wings, has been
traced to Dolph. It is seen on the headstone for Reuben Bushnell, who died
in Westbrook in 1802 and whose estate paid "to Mr. Dolph for Grave Stones .
. . $17.00." This angel's face is circular, except for a pointed chin. The eyes
and trifurcated nose were carved by a single line somewhat like the eye of a
hook-and-eye. Most stones of this type in the Saybrook area are paired with
footstones bearing Dolph's device.

I suspect that, though these angel stones were sold by Dolph, they were
not designed by him. They were probably bought, ready-made, from some
Portland quarry ~ either those owned by Shaler and Hall, or perhaps those
"Lower Quarries" owned by Orange Hurlbut. These angel stones are much
more elaborate and more carefully executed than those with simple urns that
were made by Dolph.'^

Since the mid-eighteenth century, the various owners of Portland quarries
had sold stones, not only with designs, but even inscribed with names, dates,
etc. For example, in 1750 Joshua Hempstead of New London purchased a
stone from one of the Johnsons of Middletown for the grave of William Cash-
kadden of Montville. The stone arrived in New London completely engraved
but with the name misspelled. Today one may see the depression on the
stone where Hempstead was obliged to recut the name. Though the Mid-
dletown craftsmen were usually much more skillful than the numerous small-
town stonecutters of Connecticut, the late ready-made stones are generally
stereotyped with set patterns and consequently not nearly so interesting as
the earlier stones which were made to order by local craftsmen.

Another reason for suspecting that Dolph purchased these ready-made
angel stones from Portland is that similar designs may be found in other
towns near Portland. Had they been Dolph's creations, they would have
been limited to towns near Saybrook.

A footstone device is sometimes helpful in distinguishing the work of one
stonecutter from that of another. Despite differences in his headstone
designs, Dolph's footstones are very much alike. They are helpful, therefore,
in those areas where his headstones are common. But here again, he did not
express much originality because somewhat similar footstones may be found
in other areas of Connecticut.

Charles Dolph

147

Fig. 2 Cap* Daniel Hall 1813. Duck River Burying Ground, Old Lyme.

Despite his popularity, Dolph seemed to be in constant need of money
while he was in Saybrook. He sold his remaining property in Manchester to
Peter Buckland in February, 1803, and that same year he sold his land in Kil-
lingworth. He was obliged, nevertheless, to mortgage his home on three occa-
sions before 1812.

Dolph was among the last of the traditionalists. He continued to use
brownstone angels long after his more modern-minded and aggressive con-
temporaries had adopted willow-and-urn designs on marble stones. David
Ritter of New Haven, Chester Kimball of New London, and the itinerant
John B. Allen steadily encroached on Dolph's territory in the Saybrook-Old
Lyme region. Ritter frequently received $25.00 to $50.00 for his marble
stones when Dolph was receiving $10.00 to $15.00 for his sandstones.
Moreover, by 1800, Thomas Brown, A. and J. Darley, and George Lindsay,
all of New York, were shipping gravestones to Connecticut shore towns,
which also made life harder for Dolph.

The War of 1812 did not cause much hardship in Connecticut, even

148 Connecticut Gravestones

though the British could blockade Long Island Sound at will. They also con-
tinued their policy of seizing American ships and impressing American sea-
men. Probably in response to news that the enemy was more active than
usual, Charles Dolph enlisted in the Connecticut Militia on December 13,
1814. One month later a British privateer captured the sloop Betsy and the
schooner Ann near Saybrook Point. That night sixteen volunteers from
Saybrook manned two longboats and pursued the British half way across the
Sound, where the American vessels were recaptured after a sharp engage-
ment. A British lieutenant was killed and five British seamen taken prisoner.
One American was killed - Charles Dolph, stonecutter, of Saybrook.^ The
saddest part of this affair is that a Treaty of Peace had been signed on
December 24, 1814, but no one in Saybrook had heard of it.

Mrs. Mabel Cassine Holman, in her notes on Saybrook history, says that
Dolph was buried in the old cemetery near Saybrook Point. There is,
however, no mention of his gravestone in the State Gravestone Registry in
Hartford.

When the inventory of Dolph's estate was completed, it was said that he
died insolvent. The adminstrators took their fees, amounting to about 20%
of the total estate, and after the creditors were paid about thirty cents on the
dollar, there was little, or nothing, left for Dolph's family.

Charles Dolph's probate papers at the Connecticut State Library contain
some interesting items:

9 Acres of land in East Hartford

$63.00

1 House

350.00

1 Work Shop

100.00

1 High Chist with 2 Draws

1.00

1 Side Board

1.50

1 Trundle bed Sted

2.00

1 small Bed for children with

bedstead & clothing stand

4.50

1 silver watch

10.00

1 dictionary

.75

1 pr Black smith Bellows

11.00

Anvils

2.92

2 stone axes & Pick 19 lbs

19.00

6 Sledges 28 1/2 lbs

2.50

Stone chisels 16 lbs

2.00

4 mallets

.25

Charles Dolph 149

1 Stone Rubber

.25

1 Writing hammer

.30

237 Feet underpining

29.33

181 Feet flaging

26.20

25 Feet Ruf Stone Steps

12.00

5 Set oven mouths

6.00

IFire place 10 1/2 ft

3.50

Jams & mantletree stones

4.50

72 Feet workt grave stones

36.00

1 Set grave stones E. Ransom

9.00

1 " do MarySanford

7.00

1 St do E. Champion

5.00

Total Estate

912.81

Expenses of Widow

102.31

Represented insolvent

Sale of goods

485.77

Cost of Administration

189.40

To be averaged

%.37

Money due

Settled for

Arunah Hurlbut note

74.17

22.89

Shaler & Hall on book

32.48

10.02

Orange Hurlbut on note

54.29

16.75

Richard Dickinson

16.32

5.84

Stephen D'wolf

5.85

1.00

By stone & tools sold J. Mann

56.00

By stone sold at Guilford

5.50

Cash of B. Dowd for wages

10.62

By stone sold S. Carter

100.00

Dolph's widow (who appears in different documents as Susannah,
Rosanna, or Roxanna) was pensioned by Congress in 1816. She died in
December, 1833, aged fifty-two.

The following Charles Dolph items are from Probate Records at the Con-
necticut State Library:

Reuben Bushnell, Westbrook, 1802. Angel design.

"To Mr. Dolph for Grave Stones $17.00"
Handley Bushnell, Saybrook, 1811. Urn design. Cypress Cemetery.

"Sept 3 1811. To Cash payed for grave stones $15.00

To going twice to Dolfs after said grave stones 0.50."
E. Champion. Gravestones mentioned in Dolph's inventory, 1815.

$5.00. Stones not found.
David Dibbill, Clinton, 1811. Urn design.

"July 14, 1812. To David Dibbill for going to Saybrook Point after Grave

Stones $1.25

To a pare of Grave Stones $10.00"

150 Connecticut Gravestones

Daniel Hall, Old Lyme, 1813. Tree design. Duck River Cemetery (Fig. 2).

"Sept 27th 1813. Receivd of Richd McCurdy Adm. on the Estate of Danl

Hall late of Lyme dec'd Eighteen Dollars in full for one pr Grave Stones.

Charles Dolph."
E. Rcmsom. Gravestones mentioned in Dolph's inventory, 1815.

$9.00. Stones not found.
Samuel Redfield, Clinton, 1812. Urn design.

"To going to Saybrook point after grave stones $1.25

To a pare of Grave Stones $10.00"
Simeon Redfield, Clinton, 1811. Undecorated sandstone slab.

"To Charles Doulf for Grave Stones $10.00"
Ezra Robbins, Old Lyme, 1813. Urn design. Duck River Cemetery.

"To Charles Dolf $12.00"
Mary Sanford, Saybrook, 1814. Urn design. Upper Cemetery.

Gravestones mentioned in Dolph's inventory, 1815. $7.00.
Joseph Spencer, Westbrook, 1810. Urn design.
Lydia Spencer, Westbrook, 1810. Urn design.

"To one day going to Saybrook to purchas Grave Stones $1.00

To two pair of Grave Stones $14.00

To Carting and seting Grave Stones $1.25."
Samuel Waterhouse, Saybrook, 1802. Stones not found.)

"May 31st 1803. To Cash paid Dolph for Grave Stones 0.15.0

June 27. To cash paid for colouring* said stones 0.3.0.'

/ do not understand this last item. It is probably not an error inasmuch as the probate papers
of Daniel Barker of Branford (died 1801) contain a similar item: "payed Jonathan palmer
one shilen for Culering Daniel Barkers grave stones 0. 1.0. " (Caulfield note)

NOTES

1. The birds carved by Dolph are, however, quite unlike the "crowing cocks" carved by the
Mannings.

2. Dr. Caulfield is almost certainly correct in believing that these "flared ear" stones were not
made by Dolph. They became almost the standard design for inexpensive stones near the
end of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth. Literally hundreds of
them can be seen from far up the Connecticut River Valley, all along coastal Connecticut,
throughout southwestern Connecticut and into New York. While variations occur that indi-
cate that several carvers produced them, it seems evident that the majority did, as Dr. Caul-
field suggests, originate from the great carving school at Portland and were shipped far and
wide. Stones of this type have been attributed to, among others, Isaac Sweetland and
Chester Kimball based on both probate and signed stone evidence. Along right margin of
Caulfield copy is written "Fox graveyard between Montville and Fitchville near Oakdale."
He is referring to the angel stones discussed early on this page. At the bottom of the page
is written "urns very similar to Dolph urns on a stone in Rocky Hill."

3. Middlesex Gazette 1815

Lyme, Jan. 16.

Yesterday the British privateer schr. Rover, Capt. McLanagan from Nova Scotia came

Charles Dolph 151

off the mouth of Connecticut River, and sent a barge with a lieut. and 5 men after a num-
ber of vessels bound eastwau-d. The barge captured the sloop Betsy Gibbs, of Wareham,
and the schr. Ann Rider, of Chatham (M.) and was seen to take the vessels from Saybrook;
16 men from that place volunteered their services, manned 2 long boats, pursued and recap-
tured both vessels, and brought them to Saybrook. In capturing them, one man belonging
to Saybrook, by the name of Charles Dolph, a stone-cutter, was killed, and a boy slightly
wounded. On the part of the enemy, the lieut. who commanded the barge, by the name
Syphorous Cowles, was killed. The prisoners were marched this day to N. London, and
delivered to the proper authority.
The privateer is now up Sound.

Extract of letter from Capt. Carey dated Saybrook Jan. 16.

Yesterday we discovered an enemy's Schr. in chase of a sloop which she took jmd
stood off towards L. Island, soon after we discovered a barge in chase of a sloop and schr.
(schooner). The wind being light they were soon captured. I proposed ... [to retake
them] and mustered 2 boats crews and went in pursuit of them. They had by this time got
half way over to L. Island. We however came up with them both and brot them in here
about 2 o'clock this morning. We had 1 man killed in our boat and another wounded in the
eye. We killed the 1st lieutenant of the privateer & took 5 prisoners, which we have sent to
N. London.

That at least some early gravestones were painted now seems well established. A two-page
editorial addendum to the article by Eloise Sibley West on the John Dwight workshop
{Markers VI, pp. 27-29, 1989) contains all of the known information. It should be noted
that painting the lettering on modern gravestones is done in England, at least in the Nor-
folk area of East Anglia. Below the footnote Dr. Caulfield has written on his own copy the
following: "Oscar Ogg 'The 26 Letters' Crowell Co. N.Y. 1958. p. 109. After the outlines
[of the letters] had been carved out carefully with the chisel, they were gone over and filled
with paint to make them look like the original writing' [talking about early Romans]."

152

Connecticut Gravestones

ste

Lyes Buriecl

fheBocfYoE >^ I

'Hopfell ly ep yrsnd

ife departed ttiE life

poker >/ 7^ \J(^

in iKe' 7^tHyearof

his yige

Tna3e tY-DasnaLamD

Fig. 1 Hop [e] still Tyler 2nd 1762. Preston City Burying Ground, Preston.
Photograph by Farbers of rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

The Lambs 153

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XI
The Lambs (1724 -1788)

Throughout most of eastern Connecticut and especially throughout New
Lx)ndon County there are about 150 gravestones that differ considerably from
the gray schist stones that predominate in that region. These stones vary in
color from gray to yellow to pink to red. It appears that they were all gray
when first quarried and that the various colors are the result of exposure to
the elements. There is a footstone in Westminster,^ for example, for Elithea
Woodward which was erected in 1774. Recently this stone has been taken up
and for some unknown reason placed on a stone wall nearby. The lower half
of the stone, which has been buried for nearly 200 years, is still gray, whereas
the upper half, having been exposed to the air for the same length of time, is
mostly yellow mixed with small areas of pink. Also, the different colors may
be seen on the stones that have shaled or have been broken. The newly ex-
posed parts show the original cement-colored gray, while the long exposed,
unbroken parts are colored by oxidation.^

These stones are relatively soft, a great advantage to the original engraver
inasmuch as he could easily display his skillful touch without too much physi-
cal effort. A disadvantage, naturally not realized when the stones were
engraved, was that many of them could not withstand long exposure to Con-
necticut climate. On some stones the inscriptions have been partly washed
away by rain. On one out of every ten stones the date is missing, either be-
cause the stone has been accidentally broken or the surface has disintegrated
from shaling. A few stones have surfaces that are irregularly cracked like
sun-baked mud.

David Lamb (1724 - 1773)
It was easy to find the name of the accomplished person who made this
type of gravestone inasmuch as he carved very clearly on a stone in Preston:
"Hop[e] still Tyler ye 2nd who departed this life October ye 7th 1762 . . , made
by David Lamb" (Fig. 1). This stone, the only one known to have been signed
by David Lamb, is now rapidly disintegrating.^ Lamb was also paid for grave-

154 Connecticut Gravestones

Stones from the estate of Obadiah Johnson, who died in Canterbury in 1765.
Johnson's headstone is also disintegrating.

There was some difficulty, however, in identifying this particular David
Lamb because the name was fairly common in New London County during
the eighteenth century. The problem was solved by some advertisements
which appeared in the New London Gazette for July and August, 1768:

The Schooner Rambler,

OBADIAH AYER, Master, Will Sail in Ten Days for Nova-Scotia with
Freight or Passengers. Apply to said master on board said Schooner at Nor-
wich.

N.B. DAVID LAMB, of said Norwich, has a large Quantity of Nova Scotia
Grind-Stones to sell; who also cuts Grave-Stones in the neatest Manner, and will
take in Pay Cash, or Country Produce.

A similar notice concerning David Lamb and his Nova Scotia grindstones
appeared in August, 1770, in connection with the sloop Dispatch.

This David Lamb was the eldest son of David (1693-1760) and Esther
(1700-1788) Lamb of Newent. Although about ten Lamb stones are dated
prior to 1759, there is no evidence that the first David Lamb was either a
stonecutter or a mason. In his estate he left some joiner's tools and some
buildings on a farm "in Newent . . . Southeasterly from the Meeting House
. . . near a Run of Water."

David Lamb, the first stonecutter of that name, was baptized in 1724 and
married Judith Longbottom on June 19, 1750.'' A few months later he pur-
chased twelve square rods of land "near the Landing place in Norwich"; and
in 1755 he bought about seventeen acres more "by Stoney Brook . . . between
the little Plain & the old Ferry place." Nothing is known about his early train-
ing, but possibly he worked occasionally with Josiah Manning. There is a
most unusual stone in the Oak Street Cemetery in Norwich for Elizabeth
Backus dated 1765 (Fig. 2) that appears from the borders and wings to have
been made by David Lamb, yet it has a typical Manning facial design. It does
not seem likely that Lamb and Manning would have worked on the same
piece of stone unless they knew each other well. One probably purchased an
unfinished gravestone from the other.

The Lambs

155

'M%h- of Mr: ElizaBeft

'^mI ^^^^^^ ~ CoBfort of I^fr Mam^l'^^tl
^ ■^♦^4. --.- 3jr :^ year of her ac^:,r^j

\- '■»!»

c*-

-v. . '^ ■

Fig. 2 Elizabeth Backus 1765. Oak Street Burying Ground, Norwich.

156 Connecticut Gravestones

When all Lamb stones are examined closely, it will be seen that they can
readily be separated into two groups. Stones of the first group are dated
from 1729 to 1770, although they were all made probably between 1759 and
1771. The small stone for Sarah Bishop of Newent dated 1759 (Fig. 3) and
another similar stone for Rufus Mix (1755) in Norwichtown appear to be the
earliest Lamb stones because the borders are elementary and rather crudely
cut.

Stones of this first group usually show close-set eyes, a frowning brow, nar-
row nose and a turned-down mouth - sometimes on a heart-shaped face.
Occasionally one finds a decidedly pointed chin. The head is covered by a
band with rather delicate carvings that possibly was meant to represent a
crown, wig, or curly hair.

The border design shows a basic, undulating stem, a common motif on
eighteenth-century New England gravestones, but the usual leaves and
flowers are replaced by short stylized branches with curious objects, some at-
tached, some unattached to the stem. At first it was thought that these
figures were carved by Lamb merely to fill up space.

v_ ' I

Fig. 3 Sarah Bishop 1759. Ames Burying Ground, Lisbon.

The Lambs 157

David Lamb was not the best craftsman in Connecticut, either in manual
dexterity or artistic imagination, and like most Connecticut stone engravers
he copied the work of another man. We should not think less of him for that
because copying was a common custom from early times. The first Connec-
ticut stonecutter, George Griswold, had at least two followers who tried to
reproduce his work. Joseph Johnson greatly influenced Gershom Bartlett,
who, in turn, had a marked influence on the Bucklands. Josiah Manning's
early border design was copied from Bartlett, but the facial design, which was
original with Manning, can be found on the stones of at least five other men,
some of them in distant towns.

When Lamb began to do engraving, most of the stones in the Norwich-
town graveyard showed numerous geometric figures, especially stars and
circles, which did not appeal to him. Nor was he carried away by the work of
his rival and contemporary, Josiah Manning. To his credit Lamb decided
that, despite his limitations, he would attempt to copy the most artistic grave-
stones that were available.

Sometime in the late 1740s the second John Stevens of Newport, the most
skillful of the Rhode Island craftsmen, began to ship gravestones into some
eastern Connecticut towns. The double stone for Theophilus and Elizabeth
Rogers, dated 1753 and an excellent example of his work, was sent to Nor-
wichtown, and other stones soon followed. Stevens worked on a good quality
of slate which still shows the details of his superior craftmanship. These
stones unquestionably inspired David Lamb and go far to explain his work.
For example, the head pieces on Lamb stones were not meant to be crowns
or wigs but curly hair, because that is what is represented on the Rogers
stone. Lamb's borders are similarly explained. The objects which at first
sight seem to be there only to fill up spaces could represent almost anything
the way David Lamb depicted them, but the original engravings on Stevens's
stones are much smaller and more delicately carved. Mrs. Esther Fisher Ben-
son, present owner of the John Stevens Shop in Newport, a concern which
has been cutting gravestones since 1705, informs me that these small figures
represent a true artist's delineation of a flower. She points out that "the trian-
gular section of the Stevens ornament is separated from the curled leaf, the
sepals hold the flower which spreads out from there, and the central portion

158 Connecticut Gravestones

of the flower is carefully delineated, showing the anatomy of the flower
itself." There then appeared in Norwich a new border design, the inspiration
of a talented engraver. No wonder David Lamb attempted to copy it.

Between 1755 and 1771 Lamb traded with Isaiah Tiffany, a cabinetmaker
and storekeeper, from whom he bought hammer handles, trowels, tobacco,
chocolate, razors and, on June 21, 1759, a "Coffin for his child." In return.
Lamb was credited with sugar, "oisters," turkeys and his services for white-
washing, plastering and pointing. In 1770 Lamb's son mended Tiffany's oven.

A notice in the Connecticut Gazette for December 31, 1773, mentions that
the estate of one David Lamb of Norwich was being settled, and the creditors
were asked to bring their claims to Jabez Perkins, while the debtors were
threatened with lawsuits. This must have been the estate of David Lamb, the
stonecutter, because his inventory listed, in addition to his dwelling house
and shop, a quantity of flat stones, seven grindstones, four chisels, an iron
crowbar, some wedges, three trowels, three compasses and four hammers,
one of them a sledge. He also left one cow, a wig, a dictionary, seventeen
pamphlets, three old silver spoons, and "sbc new Cherry Tree Chairs" which
were valued at 7/6 apiece. The will was proved on July 21, 1773.

David Lamb (1750-1788)

Lamb stones of the second type are usually dated from 1760 to 1775, most
of them after 1769. As mentioned in a previous article, dates on gravestones,
however, are not reliable criteria for determining when a stone was actually
cut. Three Lamb stones in Pomfret for Mary, Gershom (Fig. 4) and Ephraim
Tucker are nearly identical in style and were probably made in 1774 or 1775,
yet they are dated 1759, 1769 and 1774.

These later style stones are also multi-colored, and they have the same
geographic distribution. The curly hair is somewhat more noticeable, but the
faces are decidedly different. They are more oval, show a broad forehead,
widely separated eyes and turned-up mouth. The borders, though attractive,
have more simple designs.

The Lambs

159

C^r:

jr-\ * ^-\. z™"

^■' r- r~\

Fig. 4 Gershom Tucker 1769. Sabin Burying Ground, Pomfret.
Photograph by Farbers.

Lamb stones of this later type were made by another David Lamb (1750-
1788), son of the first stonecutter of that name. In the Wilhams Cemetery in
North Stonington there is a double stone, dated 1770, for William Williams,
Jr., and his wife, Eunice. Another similar stone nearby was erected in
memory of their daughter, who died in 1760. The probate papers for William
Williams, Jr., contain this information:

Stonington May 21 Day AD 1772

Receiv'd of Adam Williams two pound Lawful money and two Shillings which
is in full for two paire of Grave Stones which William Williams bought of me
which is in full

David Lamb Jr.

The "junior" in this instance very likely refers to the David Lamb who died
in 1788. The two headstones belong to the later type, that is to say, they have
oval faces, broad foreheads, turned-up mouths and relatively simple borders.

The estate of Jonathan Lester (Fig. 5), who died in Groton in 1774, paid

160 Connecticut Gravestones

£2 to this third David Lamb. Though gravestones were not specifically men-
tioned, Lamb stones usually sold for £1-1-0 to £2-10-0. Lester's headstone
shows a face with a broad forehead and most of the common characteristics
of the later type of stones. It is supposed that these stones were made by
David Lamb, the younger, rather than by a brother, because David was the
eldest son and the one most likely to inherit the father's trade. Since he even-
tually came into possession of his father's dwelling house and shop, it would
appear that the two David Lambs were at one time associated in the grave-
stone business.

A few other Lamb stones have plain, unfeathered wings and plain head-
pieces without curls, yet they still retain most of the characteristics of Lamb
stones. Most of these unusual stones are dated between 1773 and 1775. Be-
cause there are so few of them (about fifteen in all) it is assumed that the last
David Lamb altered his style somewhat as time went on.

There are no stones dated after 1775 that, as of now, can be attributed to
David Lamb, the younger. Perhaps he went to war, or perhaps he started
working for someone else. A note in the William Rockwell estate (Norwich,
1788) suggests that he at one time worked for Rockwell Manning. Moreover,
the graves of Abel (1787) and Rachel (1769) Brewster are marked by a single
headstone which was made by Rockwell Manning, and by a single footstone
which was made by David Lamb. Manning was paid £3-3-6 from Abel
Brewster's estate.

Sometime in his career the last David Lamb encountered numerous grave
misfortunes. In November, 1788, the tax collector of Norwich, having
"caused a drum to be beat at the Sign Post . . . sold at Public Auction ... for
£lO . . . the Lots and Dwelling House in Chelsea [in Norwich which belonged
to] David Lamb the younger late of said Norwich deceased . . . where David
Lamb the elder late of said Norwich formerly dwelt."

This was an undeserved fate for two very good stone engravers. They had
carefully carved many attractive gravestones and had worked hard all their
lives, yet in the end they had nothing to show for their pains. No headstones
for any of the David Lambs have been found, but in the Oak Street
Cemetery in Norwich there is a simple footstone marked "DL."^

The Lambs

161

, j-^

lt\

1/ . - l"v'k-i!!^J»'

A *!ffi»lJ

Fig. 5 Jonathan Lester 1774. Groton.

/^.,s:

\s\'

Fig. 6 William Prince 1773. Raymond Hill Burying Ground, Montville.

162 Connecticut Gravestones

The following references to the David Lambs of Norwich have been found
among the Probate Records in the Connecticut State Library, Hartford:

Joseph Jones, Norwich, 1751.

"David Lamb £5-06-0."
Samuel Lx)throp, Norwich, 1754.

"David Lamb £25-15-0."
Jeremiah Tracy, Jr., Norwich, 1757.

"David Lamb £0-9-6."
Obadiah Johnson, Canterbury, 1765.

"then received of Obadiah Johnson Executor of the Last Will & testament of

Obadiah Johnson Late of Canterbury Decest the sum of two Pound two shill-
ings Lawful money for making a pair of Grave Stones for said Decest

received in full by me David Lamb."

Badly shaled stone in Canterbury.
Jonathan Marsh, Norwich, 1766.

"to a Debt paid David Lamb £3-2-6

to paid David Lamb £0-12-0."

No stone registered in Hartford.
William Williams, Jr., Stonington, 1771.

Mentioned in text.
Andrew Brewster, Norwich, 1772.

"David Lamb £1-10-0."

Stone in Brewster Cemetery near State Hospital in Preston is nearly

destroyed.
William Prince, Montville, 1773 (Fig. 6).

"Paid for grave stones £1-10-0."

Stone in Montville of late Lamb style (Raymond Hill Burying Ground).
Jonathan Lester, Grot on, 1774 (fig. 5).

Signed receipt by David Lamb for two pounds. Gravestones not mentioned.

Stone in Groton near Submarine Base. Late Lamb style.
Col. John Whiting, Montville, 1775.

"Grave stones £2-10-0."

Late Lamb stone, badly shaled.
Robert Avery, Lebanon, 1775.

"Paid David Lamb for cut . . . "

Manuscript torn. No stone registered in Hartford.
William Rockwell, Norwich, 1788.

"To paid Rockwell Manning £5-7-0.

to paid David Lamb £0-16-0."^

NOTES

1. This small burying ground is in the town of Canterbury on Route 14. See Slater, 77ie
Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut (Hamden, Conn., 1987) for directions.

2. Even more striking verification may be seen on a series of stones in Norwich. These stones
were removed many years ago from a burying ground no longer in existence and placed in

The Lambs 163

a crawl space below the adjacent church. A number of typical Lamb stones are included
and all are of a gray schist color.

3. The Hopestill Tyler stone remains the only known signed Lamb stone. It is in the Preston
City burying ground. For many years it has been enclosed in a glass or plexiglas case. This
protection appears to have been very effective cis there has not been noticeable deteriora-
tion at least in the past fifteen years.

4. The Caulfield copy has written in the following, "Judith Longbottom Lamb relict of Mr.
David Lamb d. March 24, 1799 aged 69 years (gray urn willow)."

5. The Caulfield manuscript notes state that there is a David Lamb ca. 1771 buried in Preston
but that he was not a relation.

6. Caulfield's copy has three names added on this page as follows:

Joseph Knight 1738. David Lamb

John Longbottom 1753. To David Lamb 1-0-0

Daniel Longbottom 1753. To David Lamb 1-0-0
Caulfield also has a note written on his copy indicating his uncertainty as to whether the
Andrew Brewster 1772 stone is in Brewster cemetery or in Oak Street cemetery.

164

Connecticut Gravestones

Itl

'- «

xr"Lm''i'^^!-;V^\ ,.

^G -- i''^ ■ ^^^

Fig. 1 Samuel Lad[d] 1736. Birchard Plains Burying Ground, Franklin.

Fig. 2 Nathaniel Rudd 1727. Birchard Plains Burying Ground, Franklin.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 165

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XII

John Hartshorn (1650-c. 1738)^

vs.
Joshua Hempstead (1678-1758)

Parti

Joshua Hempstead of New London, the only New England stonecutter to
keep a diary, never used abstruse sentences filled with polysyllabic words.^
On the contrary, except when dealing with legal matters, he wrote in a
worldly, uncomplicated style that even the ordinary reader, over two cen-
turies later, can easily understand. It is strangely ironic, therefore, that such
simple words as "cut" and "mark" should cause so much confusion and espe-
cially when Hempstead practically spelled out exactly what he meant. When
he wrote that he "cut" gravestones, he did not mean that he engraved designs
on them. He meant merely that he cut letters and dates on some stones that
he bought with designs previously engraved on them by other men. It is easy
to prove this point. Had Hempstead cut his own design we should now be
able to find it on his "red" stones from Middletown as well as on his "black"
stones from Norwich. Since no one has ever found the same, or even similar,
designs on stones from both Middletown and Norwich quarries, the only ob-
vious conclusion is that, though he cut many inscriptions, Hempstead never
designed a single headstone.

Rather than confound the confusion that now exists concerning so-called
"Hempstead" stones, we start with a short quotation from the Diary:^

November 29 1725. I went to Norwich to buy Gravestones . . . Tues-
day 30. I went up to Lads & agreed with Mr Hartshorn for 10 pr of gr stones 3
pr Large of about 20 s price & ye other 10 s 12 s & 15 s & I am to pay him in
Wooll to Lett him have 100 lb & to take itt out in Stones . . . March 21, 1726.
aftern[oon] I went to Norwich ... 22 I went to Lads to See after gravestones
. . . August 3, 1726. I went up to Samll Lads to breakfast. I Carryed 60 lb of
Wooll for Mr Hartshorn & bot of him 9 pr Large grave Stones for £8 & yn to
Windham . . . Nov 22, 1734. I went to Norwich & went to Ladds & bot 10 pr of
gr. stone for £8 to be p[ai]d when I Sell them. I p[ai]d £3 7s od that was due
before.

It should be clear from these statements that Hempstead bought some
stones from a Mr. Hartshorn who either hved or worked with Samuel Ladd.

166 Connecticut Gravestones

Norwich land records of 1729-1730 mention two Samuel Ladds, one "of
Norwich," the other "of Haverhill." They owned property on Middle Hill in
West Farms, now Franklin, on both sides of the road to Windham. Though
one deed mentions a "Great Ledge of Rocks," it does not specifically mention
any quarry. Samuel Ladd "of Norwich" always signed his name with his mark,
indicating that he could not write, and since he could not make letters he
could hardly have inscribed gravestones. His headstone (Fig. 1) in Franklin
reads:

MR SAMUEL LAD DIED
MARCH 4 : 1736 & IN YE
54 : YEAR : OF : HIS : AGE

This Samuel Ladd was born in Haverhill, Massachusetts, in 1682, married
sixteen-year-old Martha, daughter of Lieutenant John Hartshorn in 1705, and
moved to Norwich West Farms about 1709. The inventory of his estate dis-
closes that he was primarily a farmer. He owned no tools essential to quarry-
ing or engraving stones, nor have any documents been found to show that he
cut gravestones. Among his probate records, however, is a slip of paper read-
ing:

Norwich March ye 22 1736
then received of the widdo Martha Ladd 25 shillings upon ye account of
making graveStons for Samuel Ladd Dccesed
I say received by me John Hartshorne

Contrary to the negative information about Samuel Ladd as a stone
engraver, there is positive material to show that John Hartshorn not only sold
gravestones in wholesale lots but actually engraved a good many. Concern-
ing him, Hempstead had a few more interesting things to say:''

21 October 1724. I was about home all day, & in Town [of New London]. I
bot of Jno Hartshorn 10 pr. of Gravestones. 1 Small foot Stone is wanting.
Price for [ ] Pounds & I am to pay uncle Hartshorn all the money as fast as I
can make mony of them, to get him 1 bb blue fish if I can & Send to
[Norjwich. If I can get 2 bbs he will Take them . . . August 16, 1726 . . . fetched
9 pr Gravestones from Douglasses wharf brot from Norwich p[er] Wm Whitt-
ney. I pd him 7s 6d & trusted him 2s 6d ... 18 August 1726 ... I sent 50 lb of
wool by michel Rood to Mr Jno Hartshorn at Norwich.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead

167

In addition to this evidence there exist in the Connecticut State Library at
least two more of John Hartshorn's signed receipts for making gravestones.
He made a pair, dated 1727 and costing 30s, for Nathaniel Rudd (Fig. 2) of
West Farms. He made another pair for Captain Obadiah Smith (Fig. 3) of
Norwichtown, also dated 1727, but costing 40s, the extra 10s probably for
engraving the awful poetry on it:^

NOW BETWEEN
THESE CARVED STONS
RICH TRESUER LIES
DEER SMITH HIS BONES

On the Smith receipt Hartshorn described himself as a "stone cuter."

fif'-i n/sv. / II"- 17;. 7 ^<

■ --■■■ ■ . '■■•-■ ■■/!%■• , Jii.r ^

Fig. 3 Cap Obadiah Smith 1727. Norwichtown Burying Ground, Norwich.

168 Connecticut Gravestones

The three gravestones that are known to have been made by John
Hartshorn are not only similar to each other but also similar to at least
another 125 gravestones still to be found in eastern Connecticut between
Hampton and Long Island Sound. Most of them are in Franklin, Lebanon,
Mansfield Center, New London, Norwichtown and Windham. There are
twice as many in Norwichtown as there are in New London, which is addi-
tional proof that Hempstead did not make them. Usually they measure
about twenty inches high and twenty-four inches wide.

In describing these stones it is more necessary than usual to mention a few
details, because Hartshorn is the key figure in the mystery that surrounds
many other New England gravestones.

The small, round or slightly oval faces are decidedly elementary and, with
few exceptions, are very much alike. One exception is the face on the stone
for Caleb Mumford (Fig. 4) in New London, dated 1725, which measures
only about one inch in diameter and shows a small serpent on either side.
Most of Harshorn's little, hoUowed-out eyes are composed of double circles
which are cut in low relief. The narrow noses and tiny mouths are made with
a few straight lines except for an occasional mouth which is oblong and
slightly open. These faces are so different from the faces on other Connec-
ticut stones that they are easy to remember after one has seen a few.

The most striking characteristic of many of these stones is the double
peaked headdress (see Obadiah Smith stone. Fig. 3), which faintly resembles
the headdress or hennin worn by court ladies of the fifteenth century. This
was one of Hartshorn's ways of representing wings. On other stones the face
is nearly surrounded by a webbed ornament of one, two or three tiers,
another of Hartshorn's ways of representing wings. On these stones the tiers
are segmented, as were the wings that were carved by the master craftsmen
in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. If any spaces remained after he carved his
peculiar wings, Hartshorn filled them with small hearts or coils or both.

Of five different designs that he used in his finials, the only one that needs
to be mentioned here is usually composed of two or three concentric circles
with the whole divided into segments by straight double lines resembling
spokes. This attractive ornament, which we will return to later, is essentially
geometric, so I prefer, for the purpose of identification in this article, to call

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead

169

it a decorated "wheel." It could have been devised by any intelligent person
with a compass, a ruler and a little imagination, but John Hartshorn was the
only Connecticut stone engraver to make use of this device. (Smaller ver-
sions of the same ornament appear on a few black slate stones in Stonington.
These were engraved by the first John Stevens (1646-1736) of Newport, so
they properly belong to Rhode Island rather than to Connecticut.)

The most common of his many different border designs is the undulating
stem that is so frequently found on early New England gravestones, except
that small coils replace the usual flowers or leaves. Another common border
is difficult to describe because it does not look like anything except, perhaps,
a fishhook. This design is chiefly of interest because it was modified and
used by other stonecutters for over twenty years after Hartshorn died. As on
the Ladd stone, Hartshorn sometimes used combined letters, and he
generally carved an unnecessary ampersand (&). His capital letters are
slightly uneven despite visible guidelines on some stones.

Fig. 4 Caleb Mumford 1725. Antient Burying Ground, New London.
Photograph by James Slater.

170 Connecticut Gravestones

Unlike most gravestones of the period, many of Hartshorn's stones are not
of uniform thickness, and sometimes, when the sun is nearly overhead, the
inscribed surfaces are seen to be grossly uneven, as though they had not been
sufficiently prepared. The edges, in particular, are frequently rough and un-
finished, more so than any other style of gravestone. His footstones usually
show two circles which are divided into quadrants by double lines. These
crossed lines within circles are mere simplifications of the so-called "wheels"
and have no symbolic significance whatsoever.

Though an occasional stone is dated as early as 1676-1679, probably none
was made much before 1723. It was just as easy for an early stone artist to
make a stone for a grandfather whose grave had been unmarked for thirty
years as it was to make one for a husband who had been dead only a few
weeks. This explains early dates on some gravestones, and it is a mistake to
take them as the dates when the stones were actually engraved.

Nearly nine out of ten of these Hartshorn stones are dated between 1723
and 1735, after which they gradually disappear. The stone for Priscilla Pal-
mer of Franklin, dated 1736, and another nearby for John Elderkin, dated
1737, are probably the last stones made in Connecticut bearing John
Hartshorn's designs.

Who was the John Hartshorn who lived with Samuel and Martha Ladd
and who made gravestones in eastern Connecticut, particularly in Norwich,
from about 1723 to 1737? According to a typescript (originally a manuscript)
genealogy of the Hartshorn family by the late Celeste P. Hazen, there were
only five John Hartshorns born in New England before 1714. Two sentences
in Hempstead's Diary give the clue that identifies our particular John.^ On
July 14, 1727, Hempstead wrote: "I d[elivere]d to old Mr Hartshorn 62 1/2
[pounds] of wool. I am to send it up to Norwich to Whittneys." Though
Hempstead does not specifically mention John Hartshorn or gravestones in
this passage, it was his custom, nevertheless, to swap wool for gravestones
especially when dealing with John Hartshorn of Norwich. The word "old" can
apply only to the John Hartshorn, son of Thomas, who was born in Reading
in 1650, because he was the only John Hartshorn living in 1727 who was
older than Hempstead - twenty-eight years older, to be more exact. Mrs.
Hazen said that this John at one time made his home in Norwich with his

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 171

daughter, Martha Ladd.

Hempstead's reference to "uncle Hartshorn" also means the first John be-
cause he was uncle by marriage to Lucy Hartshorn, who was Hempstead's
sister. A minor point is that Hempstead sometimes referred to John
Hartshorn as "Mr Hartshorn," undoubtedly out of respect for his age.

Thus we have explanations for the following observations: Hartshorn's
stones dated 1723 or later are much more common than those with earlier
dates, which would correspond with his arrival in Norwich within a few years
of the death of his fourth wife, Mary, who died in 1719. The many different
patterns which he used for gravestones indicate that he was an experienced
stonecutter before he came to Norwich. A novice, particularly a young one,
would very likely have been content with one or two designs. Many of
Hartshorn's engravings show minor irregularities even when he cut straight
lines. The receipt for gravestones that he gave to the widow, Martha Ladd,
was written in an uncertain hand. The headstone for Samuel Ladd, his son-
in-law and benefactor, is one of the poorest examples of his work. These
facts are now easily understandable. When he made that headstone
Hartshorn was nearly eighty-six years old!

John Hartshorn's probate papers are not at present available. Despite
scores of stones that he made to mark the graves of his contemporaries, no
stone now exists to mark his own. He died very probably in 1738 because the
gravestone for his brother, Doctor David Hartshorn, who died in West Farms
in November, 1738, aged eighty-one, was made by another hand.^

Part II

Having determined that those gravestones in eastern Connecticut, hitherto
wrongly attributed to Joshua Hempstead, were actually engraved by John
Hartshorn, we now turn our attention to northern Essex County, Mas-
sachusetts, where he spent most of his adult life.

When his father, Thomas, remarried in 1661, John, who was then nearly
eleven years old, was probably put out as an apprentice in Reading, although
details are lacking at the present time (Hazen). His marriage to Ruth Swan
when he was twenty-two years old, and subsequently the births of their
children, were recorded in Haverhill. His wife died of smallpox in Haverhill

172 Connecticut Gravestones

in 1690, and sometime before 1693 he married Abigail Brown. Because of
his service in King Philip's War in 1676, and again as a soldier at Wells,
Maine, in 1693, "John Hartshorn, dark, of Haverhill" was promoted to the
rank of lieutenant.

He appears to have lived in Salisbury for a short time about 1695, when he
transferred some of his Haverhill property to his eldest son, then twenty-two
years old. This son, John, Jr., married Hannah Frame of Salisbury in 1696.
By the unwritten laws of colonial social life John, Jr., should have worked
with his father prior to 1696, but no evidence confirming this has been found.

A land record dated 1702 discloses that Hartshorn's third wife was named
Joanna. In 1709 Lieutenant Hartshorn "of Haverhill" married again, this
time, the widow, Mary Spofford of Rowley who was born Mary Leighton in
1654. At least three land records, dated 1710 to 1713, prove that Lieutenant
Hartshorn gave up his residence in Haverhill and moved to Rowley, where
his new bride had assigned to him her home and all of her worldly goods.

His fourth wife died in Rowley on September 16, 1719. In October, 1719,
"John Hartshorn of Rowley, yeoman" was one of three men who leased some
property in Ipswich which may have contained a quarry. Unfortunately no
further information has been uncovered concerning this "Mine Rock So-
Called."

It has so far been established that John Hartshorn, before he went to Con-
necticut, had lived or worked in some Essex County towns, more particularly
Haverhill, Salisbury, Rowley and Ipswich. It is more than a coincidence that
in these same towns there are gravestones with characteristics somewhat
similar to those seen on his Connecticut stones. It came as a surprise, there-
fore, to find his son, Jonathan, referring to him in 1710 as "my honored father
John Hartshorne of Rowley, Weaver." Elsewhere he was listed as clerk,
tailor, lieutenant or yeoman, but not as stonecutter. It would have been un-
usual for a man to be both a weaver and a stonecutter, yet this was true of
Hartshorn. Weavers were plentiful and competition must have been intense.
Gravestone cutting was not ordinarily a lucrative occupation, and many stone
engravers, finding themselves in financial difficulties while trying to raise
large families, worked at other trades. It will be recalled that Hartshorn,
when dealing with Joshua Hempstead, was frequently paid in fairly large

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 173

quantities of wool, no doubt because he was still a weaver as well as a
stonecutter while he lived in Connecticut.

When considering early stone engravers of Essex County it is not neces-
sary to compile a list of imaginary characters when it is so easy to find authen-
tic records that leave little room for doubt. Robert Swan, Sr., Hartshorn's
father-in-law, died in 1698, but his estate was not closed until 1725. His
probate papers reveal this information:

To John Hartshorn omitted by the Court 3-5-0

To mr HartsHorne for grave stoons 3-17-0

A separate receipt reads:

Haverhill November 15 1709

Received of my Brother [in-law] Robert Swan ye
Discharge of my Rates: as he is Constable
By Grave Stones made for his and my father and
mother Swan in full I say Rec'd per me

John Hartshorne

The Robert Swan gravestone (Fig. 5), dated February 1697, undoubtedly
represented a special effort on the part of Hartshorn to make a work of art
for a very dear friend, but the curious, heavy ornamentation, including two
coils, is not even symmetrical. The oval, elementary face with its sober ex-
pression is typical of early Haverhill stones.

The one remaining border is an obvious imitation of some borders that
are fairly frequently found nearer Boston and that were possibly made by
Joseph Lamson. Hartshorn undoubtedly saw such borders on the gravestone
for his brother, who died in South Reading (Wakefield) in 1694. On the
same stone he also saw two coils. The original border ornaments, which
resemble leaves, were attractively engraved, whereas Hartshorn's imitations
look more like metallic "bells." Because this "bell" border is nearly identical
to those on many early stones in upper Essex County and particularly on one
in Haverhill for Ann Wainwright (Fig. 6), dated 1697, I believe that all of
them were made by Hartshorn.

The letters on the Robert Swan stone are so shallow, chiefly because of
weathering, that they are difficult to read. They are not quite uniform in size.

174

Connecticut Gravestones

even though most of them are embelHshed with serifs.

As on most early Haverhill stones there are periods or colons between
some words. In the verse beginning "YONG - & - OLD DOTH - PAS -
AWAY ..." Hartshorne carved DOTH where he should have carved OLD,
then tried to correct his mistake but did not quite succeed.

Elizabeth Swan's gravestone, dated 1689, is a good example of stones that
were made many years after their inscribed dates - in this case there was an
interval of twenty years. Most of this stone has been destroyed so that only
the floral border is now of interest. It differs so much from the Robert Swan
border (Fig. 5) that without documentary proof it would be difficult to
believe that both stones were engraved by the same man at nearly the same
time. Similar floral borders or slight modifications of them are to be found
on about ten other stones in Essex County, nearly all dated between 1708 and
1714.

Fig. 5 Robert Swan 1697/8. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead

175

/J^/. V^V^

W)-

■:-Xi

^f i

^■'i-;^

^, ■^>y'

. ,

mk_ -

Fig. 6 Ann Wainwright 1697. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

A floral border identical to that on the Elizabeth Swan stone appears on
the double stone for two infant sons of the Reverend Mr. Benjamin Rolfe,
dated 1698 and 1699 (Fig. 7). The space between the two inscriptions on this
Rolfe stone is occupied by an undulating stem with coils, nearly the same
design that is seen so often on Hartshorn's Connecticut stones. Thus we see
a floral and geometric design on the same headstone.

Benjamin L. Mirick, in his History of Haverhill, (Haverhill, 1832, p. 132),
said that during the 1708 massacre by the Indians, Thomas Hartshorn and
two of his sons were shot and a third was tomahawked. Mrs. Hazen, on the
basis of her genealogical research, decided that these facts were more ap-
plicable to John Hartshorn, Jr., and his sons. Since John Hartshorn, Sr., is
known to have made gravestones in Haverhill in 1709, without much doubt
he made the double stone for his own son (Fig. 8). This stone has essentially
the same oval and sober face that is seen on the Robert Swan stone, but the
remaining border shows a variation of the "bell" design. Every second "bell"
has been replaced by perpendicular lines that diverge as they descend. These
"bell" borders and their modifications are a valuable means of identifying

176

Connecticut Gravestones

Hartshorn's work.

Also on the John Hartshorn, Jr., stone one sees the precursor of the
webbed ornament that Hartshorn was to use off and on for the remainder of
his Hfe. The lowest tier shows a serpentine line; the second tier is filled with
ten double circles, nearly the same circles that Hartshorn used for eyes.

On the stone in Haverhill for Samuel Ayer (Fig. 9), also dated 1708, two
small conventional birds were carved. They were accompanied by two styl-
ized birds, like those found on many Hartshorn stones both in Connecticut
and Massachusetts. It is worth noting that the Samuel Ayer estate paid John
Hartshorn £1-0-0 even though gravestones were not mentioned.

■ ); f, Ar/^ z-,v^jV 7//.,

Fig. 7 John Rolfes 1698 and 1699. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead

177

The triple stone in Haverhill for the Reverend Mr. Benjamin Rolfe, his
wife and daughter, who were killed in the massacre of 1708, is also partly
destroyed, but one may still see a webbed ornament, a border of modified
"bells," lettering and geometric designs that are similar to those on the John
Hartshorn, Jr., stone. On January 26, 1709/10, John Hartshorn, Sr., the
stonecutter, signed a receipt for "one bushil and half of Indian corn" as part
payment of a debt that was owed to him from the Benjamin Rolfe estate.

Fig. 8 John Hartshorne Jr. 1708. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

178

Connecticut Gravestones

The funeral of Colonel Francis Wainwright of Ipswich in August, 1711,
was one of those extravagant spectacles that the early New Englanders so
dearly loved to watch. The thirty-six escutcheons, "great hatchment of armes"
and other necessities cost over £415, or considerably more that the net worth
of an ordinary Ipswich farmer. The estate of Colonel Wainwright could well
afford to have the best stone craftsman in Massachusetts obtain a flat stone
suitably inscribed for the new tomb. The receipt is now in the Essex County
Probate Court:

Received this 12 march 1711 [1712] of John Whipple on of the executors of
colonell frances wainwright deces his Esteat ten pounds ten shiHngs for a toom
stoon

by John Hartshorne

This document is easily legible despite a few large and scrawly letters and
more than Hartshorn's usual quota of misspelled words. But on that day in
March, 1712, when he received from the estate of one of the most prominent
men in Massachusetts the handsome sum of ten pounds and ten shillings for
a single "toom stoon," John Hartshorn, as a capable and respected artisan,
had at last arrived.

Fig. 9 Capt^ Samuel Ayer 1708. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 179

Only by including the stones made during Hartshorn's Rowley period (c.
1709- c. 1720) can one grasp the full scope of his versatility. His oval faces
were gradually replaced by nearly circular faces with large, carefully
engraved rosettes on either side. He made a few bold experiments with dif-
ferent wing designs, but soon abandoned them. One also finds considerable
variation in his borders of diamonds, "dominoes" and different circular orna-
ments, but usually the "modified bell" remained the basic pattern. Most of
his curious birds were squeezed into corners lateral to the rosettes. Some of
them resemble chicks with upward pointed beaks, wide-open eyes and long
necks, but in such cramped quarters they look more like uncomfortable
ducks.

The most constant feature of Hartshorn's engraving and therefore a valu-
able means of identifying his work is the lettering. After he abandoned his
seventeenth-century V-shaped U, he adopted a distinctive wide-mouthed U
which he used for the remainder of his life. He also continued his early 5's
and only gradually did he abandon his undersized capital O's. His early and
urmecessary "AND" was soon changed to an unnecessary ampersand (&)
which he continued to use until he died. During his residence in Rowley he
appears to have learned to carve his letters deeper, or else he engraved on a
harder stone.

Now that we know that John Hartshorn made gravestones in upper Essex
County, that he was not a mere amateur but was held in high esteem and that
many of his stone-cutting characteristics can be easily recognized, we should
return to Haverhill to consider three early gravestones that are somewhat
similar to each other but at the same time different from the stones so far
described.

Despite their differences in dates, the three small stones for John White
(Fig. 10), dated January 1668/9, Israel Ela (Fig. 11), dated 1700, and James
Gile, dated 1705, have so many features in common that it is more than prob-
able that they were engraved by the same man. The borders of coils in pairs,
for example, are nearly identical on all three stones. They also show some
Hartshorn characteristics, such as inscriptions in capital letters with serifs and
colons between some words. The oval faces are not only similar to each
other, but also similar to the faces on the Robert Swan and John Hartshorn,

180 Connecticut Gravestones

Jr., stones (Figs. 5 and 8).

Near the base of the White stone are numerous slanting Hnes which were
used to fill most of the remaining space. Similar large "grids" are to be found
on many Essex County stones, dated 1682 to 1716. Similar but smaller "grids"
also occur, particularly on the stones for Robert and Elizabeth Swan, which
are known to have been engraved by Hartshorn.

The last word "AGE" (on the Ela and Gile stones) is on a line by itself and
carved in letters that are considerably larger than any other letters on those
stones. This conspicuous "AGE" was a rare peculiarity in lettering. I recall
seeing it on only two other stones in Essex County, and on only one stone in
Connecticut. This last stone (for Nathaniel Rudd in Franklin) is now known
to have been engraved by Hartshorn. The Ela estate paid John Hartshorn
£0-6-2, although gravestones were not mentioned. On the White stone the
finial design which, for identification purposes I have been calling a
decorated "wheel," so nearly resembles the "wheels" on some Connecticut
stones that it is almost as good as a Hartshorn signature.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence that the John White stone
was not carved in 1669. According to "Haverhill Inscriptions," which ap-
peared in The Essex Antiquarian in 1908, the next earliest dates in Haverhill
were 1681, 1688, 1689, 1695 and five more dated 1697-1699. These dates
make it doubtful that any stone in Haverhill was carved as early as 1669. On
January 1, 1669, John Hartshorn would have been only eighteen years old
and, although he could have made gravestones at that age, it is unlikely that a
boy who was trained as a weaver and a tailor could have cut such a sophisti-
cated headstone on his first attempt. The White stone, therefore, if made by
John Hartshorn as I beHeve it was, was certainly not made in 1669.

Unlike contemporary gravestones nearer Boston, the early stones of upper
Essex County often show phonetic spelling such as HOSPETOLITY,
DESESED (for DECEASED), HAR (as in HAR AGE), MASH (for
MARSH), WARE (for WERE) and PASTURE OF YE CHURCH.
Hartshorn's spelling had improved considerably by the time he arrived in
Connecticut, although he still found nothing wrong with YARE (for YEAR),
PACENC (for PATIENCE), DEER (for DEAR), TRESUER, and PASTUR
OF WINDHAM CHURCH.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead

181

Only a few early footstones were found in Haverhill, two of them without
marks of identification. These two appear to have been carved c.1700 to
1705. Their borders show open hearts which are identical to the open hearts
that appear on many of Hartshorn's Connecticut headstones. On a footstone
for James Gile there is a small coffin. One early footstone has a verse:

THY: HOVR

IS: RVNE
THY: TIME

IS: DVTvfE

It is reminiscent of a Hartshorn stone in Connecticut for Deliverance Squier:

LOOK ON MY TOVMB
& THINfK ON YOUR DOM

c - - ^.„

Fig. 10 John White 1668. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

182

Connecticut Gravestones

■^f,;:|Mi i',,i,,-K'iii

>. iif.p,A!'i: 1 i,A

('■!ij\y/i]u.i.)ii.b

/:-- JniAini'') ni.

'r:-

%•

'>!

-^ 1

■j]

(-0^

)

Fig. 11 Israel Ela 1700. Haverhill, Mass. Photograph by Farbers.

We left Joshua Hempstead back in the first paragraph, where he was un-
ceremoniously stripped of some honors that he never knew he had. He con-
tinued to "cut" gravestones almost until he died. He also made coffins, sur-
veyed property, mended broken wheels, and did many other useful chores.
Though he was judge of probate when Samuel Ladd's estate was settled, he
failed to record the death of Ladd or of Hartshorn in his voluminous Diary.

Did he ever go to northern Massachusetts to sit upon the ground and copy
eyes and birds and epitaphs? The Diary reveals that he was, fundamentally,
such a practical person that he could not possibly have done so. Why should
he travel well over 200 miles to sketch gravestones when he could buy exactly
the kind he wanted right in the heart of New London {Diary, October 21,
1724, p. 148)? And he had to travel only eighteen miles to Norwich West
Farms to obtain as many more stones as he desired. Hempstead went to
Maryland once; he went to Boston once; but he never set foot in Essex
County, Massachusetts.

The possibility that John Hempstead, Joshua's son, may have cut grave-
stones was not mentioned in the Diary, but John was paid for gravestones

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 183

from the estate of Thomas Truman in 1764, and he may have been paid for
other stones before and after that.

Joshua died in 1758 after a long, very interesting and exceedingly useful
life. As in the case of John Hartshorn, no stone now exists to mark the spot
where he was buried.

Conclusion

This is admittedly an incomplete report on a new chapter in the history of
gravestones in New England. The article started as a contribution to
"Connecticut Gravestones" with emphasis on Joshua and John Hempstead,
but the many clues in Joshua's Diary proved to be altogether too valuable to
be ignored. "Old Mr Hartshorn," born in 1650 and one of the earliest stone
engravers in New England to be definitely identified, was an exceedingly ver-
satile craftsman who was trained as a clerk, weaver, tailor and soldier, but
who also made gravestones for his many friends in upper Essex County when
very few other men knew how.

When about seventy years of age, most of his immediate family having
died or moved away, this lonesome old man went to live with his daughter in
Norwich West Farms, only to find himself once again in an area where he
could make gravestones better than anyone else around.

He was never satisfied with himself or his work. A head full of ideas com-
pelled him to create new designs and then to revert to old ones when the
results did not please his fancy. Some of his essential features were never
changed at all. When the Robert Swan stone (Fig. 5), one of his earliest, is
compared with the Samuel Ladd stone (Fig. 1), one of his last, they appear to
be as unlike as any two stones could be, yet there is a similarity in the facial
features, particularly about the eyes, and a suggestion of similarity in the
coils. Except for names and dates, the wording and letters are almost exactly
the same, including the somewhat unusual capital letter U and the unneces-
sary ampersand. The student of early New England gravestones should not
forget that a stonecutter could, and often did, drastically alter his style. The
failure to realize this as well as the failure to discount dates may lead a care-
less beginner into drawing many unwarranted conclusions.

There still remains a vast amount of original source material in Essex

184 Connecticut Gravestones

County to be explored. The gravestones, in particular, require some solid
down-to-earth research along the lines proposed by Mrs. Forbes over forty
years ago. A full measure of genuine satisfaction awaits someone at the end
of this interesting trail.

[The following "NOTES" conclude the original article and are not to be confused with the ter-
minal footnotes which follow.]

1. An unexpected by-product of this research was the discovery of a few notes on the
Mulicans of Bradford, Massachusetts. In the vital records the name is spelled in ten dif-
ferent ways. Mrs. Forbes (p. 15) quoted a letter, dated 1739, from Frederick Clifton
Pierce's Foster Genealogy (Chicago, 1899), asking "Mr Robert Mulican of Bradford Ser
pray make" three gravestones for some Foster children of Andover. One cannot deter-
mine, except possibly from the original source, whether "Ser" was a misspelling of "Sir" or a
misspelling of an abbreviation of "Senior." It makes a difference because there were two
Robert MuHcans in Bradford at that time, father (1668-1741) and son (1688-1756). On
December 20, 1728, a Robert Mulicken was paid £2-5-0 for a pair of gravestones for John
White, who died in Haverhill in 1727. In 1738 Joseph Mulickon was paid forty shillings for
gravestones for John Sanders of Haverhill. Joseph (1704-1768) was also a son of Robert,
Sr.^

The predominant style of gravestones in Haverhill from about 1723 to 1741 shows a
clear-cut John Hartshorn influence. The eyes or double circles which were cut in low
relief, the circular ornaments on both sides of the face and the borders of undulating stems
with coils were definitely borrowed from Hartshorn (on the Sanders stone by Joseph
Mulickon, the coils were replaced by carefully engraved leaves). On the other hand, the
decidedly pointed chins, large oblong mouths and inscriptions of mixed capital and lower
case letters separate these stone from Hartshorn's.

Years ago Mrs. Forbes pointed out (p. 77) that the peculiar characteristics of stones
made by the Worcesters of Harvard with coils, decidedly pointed chins and central features
of the face suggesting a key were borrowed "from the gravestone-makers of Essex County .
. ." We can now pinpoint their origin more closely. They originated with the Mulicans of
Bradford with an assist from John Hartshorn of Haverhill and Rowley. Since Jonathan
Worcester was born in Bradford in 1707 he could easily have worked with the Mulicans
during their most productive years.

2. Gravestones that can be attributed to John Hartshorn with any degree of certainty seem to
disappear from upper Essex County about 1720, but the post-1720 stones, particularly in
Rowley, still show a decided Hartshorn influence. The faces with features in relief, almost
identical rosettes and borders of undulating stems with coils were certainly borrowed from
Hartshorn. Yet there are noticeable differences in the two groups of stones. On the later
stones, the engravings are much more crude. The Moses Biadstreet stone in Rowley,
dated 1727, for example, has a nose that deviates sharply to one side; also, the letters are
somewhat smaller, although the only decided difference is in the letter Y. Hartshorn's Y's
were made of straight lines whereas many post- 1720 stones have Y's with curved tails.

Mrs. Forbes (p. 128) found that Richard Leighton was paid for gravestones for Moses
Bradstreet, who died c. 1738. A probate record for Moses Bradstreet of Ipswich, dated
"Aguest" 1739, reads: "mony pade to mr Lighten for ye grave stons . . . £4-00-00." Another
related entry reads: "Cash p to Righerd Lighten . . . £5-5-0." I was unable to find these
Bradstreet stones in either Ipswich or Rowley.

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 185

In Rowley vital records the only Richard Lighten (or Leighton, Layton, etc.) who
answers the requirements was born in 1686 and died in 1749. Thus he would have been
about twenty-four years old when John Hartshorn moved to Rowley.

Obviously more research is needed, but it does not require too vivid an imagination to
beheve that the Leightons worked for Hartshorn before 1720 and inherited the gravestone
business after Hartshorn moved away. This belief is strengthened by the fact that Ezekiel
Laiten, who was paid for some Rowley gravestones in 1723, was the brother of John
Hartshorn's fourth wife, Mary. Richard was Ezekiel's son.

John Hartshorn carved two very different kinds of birds. The smaller, conventional birds
which appeared on the Samuel Ayer stone in Haverhill, dated 1708 (Fig. 9), could have
been copies of the ravens that were on the Reverend Benjamin Rolfe's family coat-of-arms.
Armorial beau-ings were a rich source of inspiration for colonial stonecutters. The second
Thomas Johnson (1718-1774), a popular stone engraver in Connecticut, owned a book on
heraldry. Not only do coats-of-arms appear commonly on gravestones, but in early colonial
days escutcheons and hatchments of arms were carried in funeral processions. On such
armorial bearings one may find all kinds of animals, particularly birds, as well as griffins,
sheep and even grasshoppers. Suns, stars, flowers, leaves, rosettes and a wide variety of
other symbols appear on both coats-of-arms and gravestones. The birds on the Samuel
Ayer stone are important because they prove that if Hartshorn wanted to carve a realistic
bird as a symbol of the soul or for any other reason, he could easily have done so.

Instead he frequently carved large stylized birds with beaks and eyes, and although
these birds appeared on many stones they were never carved with legs. Below the neck,
the bodies were usually continued as the second tier of the webbed ornament, or
Hartshorn's substitute for wings. One cannot be certain that he originally intended to
carve birds at all, because some of the early designs have blunt noses and look more like
the heads of quadrupeds than birds.

To understand these stylized ornaments one must follow Hartshorn's use of his
double circles, which are similar to and generally slightly larger than the double circles that
he used for eyes. These were apparently his favorite decorative devices, and although it is
impossible to be certain of their exact chronological development because dates on graves-
tones are so unreliable, they may be found almost anywhere on a stone.

On the double stone for John Hartshorn, Jr. (Fig. 8), these circles fill up the second
tier of wings, and if so much of this stone had not been destroyed there would now be more
than thirty of these so-called "eyes." They are always found in pairs in the "modified bell"
borders. On a stone in Salisbury they appear in front of the beaks, and therefore
Hartshorn did not intend them to be eyes of "birds."

On his later stones Hartshorn slighted his "birds" by pushing them into corners and
making them secondary to his rosettes. In Connecticut he continued to experiment. One
stone, dated 1721, has a bird's head but no eyes. The distorted bodies on the Samuel Ladd
stone (Fig. 1) do not look anything like the bodies of birds. On other Connecticut stones,
dated c. 1732, Hartshorn carved four of these strange "birds." That these particular figures
had any symbolic significance is doubtful. They were certainly the result of trial and error,
which an accepted symbol would not have been. Had Hartshorn desired to carve a mean-
ingful bird, he could have tried a little harder and carved one more easily recognizable as
such.

Hartshorn was primarily an artisan. He did not even pretend to be a philosopher who
knew more about symbols than there was to know. These birds were his ovra creations, the
conceits or whimseys of a man with a fertile brain and a pair of clever hands. Like many
small ornaments on gravestones, these "birds" pleased the man who carved them, and that
was all that mattered. They were akin to the human legs and feet on a Haverhill foot-

186 Connecticut Gravestones

4. Other stonecutters by the name of Hartshorn, some directly descended from John, were
encountered in the course of this research. For example:

august the 17 1742 received of mrs Mary Addams
forty shillings for a Pare of grave Stons for
her former husband James Pearson

Jonathan hartshorn

James Pearson's headstone has not as yet been found, nor has the identity of this Jonathan
Hartshorn been established beyond doubt. Possibly he was Lieutenant John's grandson
who was born in Haverhill in 1703, married Sarah Cross and lived in Methuen, where he
was described in various deeds, dated 1729 to 1743, as husbandman, yeoman, or laborer.
He could have been the Lieutenant Jonathan Hartshorn who was in the Louisburg Expedi-
tion of 1745. Four children of a Jonathan Hartshorn were baptized in Newbury between
1746 and 1752. Unfortunately there are no probate papers for any Jonathan Hartshorn in
Essex County before 1800.

If the gravestone for John Hartshorn, a child who died in Methuen in 1738, was made
by his father, Jonathan of Methuen, the latter was not much of a stone engraver. This peg-
shaped gravestone shows a face with a wide hydrocephalic forehead. Everything else about
the stone, including the lettering, is amateurish.

Years ago Mr. Kendall P. Hayward called my attention to a gravestone in West
Thompson, Connecticut, for Samuel Watson which was signed "S. Hartshorn, 1783." This
was Stephen Hartshorn because his brother, Charles of Providence, on October 8, 1784,
received "four pounds Lawful Money in full for a pair of Grave Stones" from Samuel
Watson's estate. Charles and Stephen, great gransons of the first John (b. 1650), were
probably partners in the gravestone business in Providence.

NOTE: An unabridged version of this article, and a bibliography, has been deposited at
The Connecticut Historical Society.

NOTES

1. The name of the carver has been spelled several ways. Dr. Caulfield himself spelled it
HARTSHORN ( = HARTS HORN). John himself always signed his name
HARTSHORNE ( = HART SHORNE).

2. Dr. Caulfield's article on John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead is in many ways his most
thoroughly researched, most scholarly and at the same time his most enigmatic article.
While his earher articles contained entertaining asides of wry humor. Article XII has a dif-
ferent tone in places, often one of biting sarcasm. Here are some examples:

"Joshua Hempstead .... never used abstruse sentences filled with
polysyllabic words."

"It is strongly ironic therefore that such simple words as 'cut' and
'mark' should cause so much confusion and especially when Hempstead practi-
cally spelled out exactly what he meant."

"When considering early stone engravers of Essex County it is not
necessary to compile a list of imaginary characters when it is so easy to find
authentic records that leave little room for doubt."

"We left Joshua Hempstead back in the first paragraph where he was
unceremoniously stripped of some honors that he never knew he had."

John Hartshorn vs. Joshua Hempstead 187

"Did he [Joshua Hempstead] ever go to northern Massachusetts to sit
upon the ground and copy eyes and birds and epitaphs? . . . .Why should he
travel well over 200 miles to sketch gravestones when he could buy exactly the
kind he wanted right in the heart of New London?"

"Hartshorn was primarily an artisan. He did not even pretend to be a
philosopher who knew more about symbols than there was to know."

Because future gravestone students may be somewhat bewildered by parts of this, it
seems appropriate for some background to be provided. To understand comments
such as those above and several additional ones related to back-dating one must real-
ize that this article is in part a rebuttal to the discussion of this group of stones as
treated by Allan Ludwig in Graven Images (the magnificently illustrated book, the
publication of which more than any other single event brought about the current en-
thusiasm for gravestone studies). Dr. Ludwig's book appeared in 1966. Dr. Caul-
field, to my personal knowledge, was very irritated by this book. (A note written by
Dr. Caulfield on his copy of Connecticut Gravestones XII says "ms sent about Dec. 1,
1966.") It is almost a classic case of the intellectual conflict between the careful, con-
servative, non-speculative, document-oriented scholar versus the broad-visioned, in-
terpretative, big-story, but not so careful with details, worker. While Dr. Caulfield,
who appears to have been working slowly toward a book on early Connecticut
stonecarvers, probably felt "scooped" by Dr. Ludwig's book, from personal conversa-
tion I know that his chief irritation was Ludwig's willingness to conceive a scenario
of a series of carvers where there was no documentary evidence, but rather where
there was strong documentary evidence to the contrary.

One must admit that there may indeed have been a personal side to the inten-
sity of Dr. Caulfield's feelings. On page 458 of Dr. Ludwig's book he comments on
the Caulfield articles somewhat offhandedly by stating, after complimenting Caul-
field on his "carefully composed articles": "However, the author's attributions are
far less secure than his documentary evidence and the reader should be warned
against taking them for granted." Dr. Caulfield was a man of pithy temperament
who had been working hard on the position of Joshua Hempstead relative to John
Hartshorn, and when he read the above and compared it to the Ludwig series of Es-
sex County carvers, most of whom Caulfield believed to be John Hartshorn alone, it
was impossible for his reaction not to seep into this article.

Since both men contributed immensively to the field and since both were fal-
lible, as all scholars are, the above is not offered as a judgment but only as an ex-
planation of what may seem otherwise incomprehensible in the article.

Perhaps the most important feature of all of the above is the establishment of
the John White stone (Fig. 10) as not being nearly as early as Ludwig believed. This
invaluable stone I am now told has disappeared from the Haverhill burying ground.
If ever there was a lesson to be placed before those opposed to safeguarding impor-
tant stones, this is it.

3. Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connecticut, (New London County Historical
Society, Collections, 1:163, 167, 173, 281 (1901).

4. Z)/a/y, 1:148, 173.

5. Maybe the poetry was "awful," but the word can mean two things. Perhaps not every early
eighteenth-century wife thought of her husband as a rich treasure, and to me "deer smith
his bones" still evokes an emotion across the centuries that more sophisticated epitaphs of-
ten do not.

188

Connecticut Gravestones

6. D/ary, 1:186.

7. The carver was Obadiah Wheeler. The stone is in the Birchard Plains burying ground in
Franklin.

8. An article on the Mulliken Carvers by Ralph L. Tucker will appear in the next number of
Markers.

9. A sketch appears in the original article. The footstone in Haverhill is not identified.

10. For later articles on John Hartshorne see: Peter Benes, "Lt. John Hartshorn: Gravestone
Maker of Haverhill and Norwich," Essex Institute Historical Collections, 109:152 (No. 2,
April 1973), and James A. Slater and Ralph L. Tucker, "The Colonial Gravestones of John
Hartshorne," Puritan Gravestone Art II, (Boston, 1978), 79.

rir) n")

\ <k

^x. '^" .-■

'S;

'>^

Fig. 1 Abigail Holt 1752. Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.
Carved by Richard Kimball. Photograph by Farbers.

The Kimballs 189

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XIII
The Kimballs*

Richard Kimball (1722-1810)

By modern standards Richard Kimball was not an outstanding gravestone
artist, yet he was very popular in his day and had the courage to sign his
name to at least four stones. Although he bought and sold land in Windham
occasionally, he is not to be confused with Richard Kimball, joiner, who died
there in 1760, nor with Richard, the joiner's son. Our Richard, son of
Samuel, was born in Bradford, Massachusetts, in 1722 and was brought to
Pomfret by his parents about 1723. There he married Abigail Holt in 1748.
In most of his Pomfret records he was classified as "husbandman" or
"yeoman," probably indicating that stonecutting was not his chief occupation,
which one might surmise by merely glancing at his stones. The last of his
Pomfret deeds is dated 1761, when he moved to St. John's, New Brunswick.
But he was back in Connecticut, probably in Pomfret, sometime about 1780,
because three^ of his signed gravestones are dated about that time. In 1782,
at the age of sixty, he obtained permission to go to Nova Scotia, then under
loyal English occupation, and little is heard of him after that date. He very
probably moved to Lebanon, Connecticut, to live with his sons before moving
to New York state.'^ His death was reported in Connecticut newspapers in
July, 1810: "At Canajoharry, Mr. Richard Kimball, aged 88,^ formerly of
Pomfret in this state."

The earliest signed gravestone known to have been "Maid by Richard
■^mll" jg ^j^g Qj^g £qj. j^jg mother-in-law, Abigail Holt, who died in Hampton
in 1752 (Fig. 1).'' This small stone has undecorated borders and a quatrefoil,
or four-leaf clover, as its only decoration. Except for the above-mentioned
errors in spelling and spacing of the signature, the lettering is surprisingly
good, which may mean that Richard had engraved stones before this one was
made.

* This article is the first of three prepared by Peter Benes and based on Dr. Caulfield's un-
published work.

190

Connecticut Gravestones

Nearby is a stone made for Abigail Kimball, Richard's daughter, dated
1754 (Fig. 2). This could hardly have been intended as a portrait stone inas-
much as the circular staring eyes, triangular nose and thick lips form a face
that did not belong to any man's child. The wings are represented by short
coiled wires extending laterally from the shoulders and sides of the head.
Despite his fairly good lettering, Richard Kimball could not have had much
training in engraving portraits. Except for a few uneven letters in an inscrip-
tion which begins "Hear Lies . . ." this stone offers additional evidence that
Richard had prior experience, especially in lettering. The design appears to
have been original for it does not even closely resemble that on other stones
in that part of Connecticut. The borders are composed of small uneven
diamonds, which Richard used frequently on other stones. Stones similar to
the one he made for his daughter may be seen in the Grow cemetery, but all
of them are so heavily coated with lichen that at present they are not very
helpful.

Fig. 2 Abigail Kimball 1754. Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

The Kimballs

191

Richard signed his name on stones he made for Solomon Griggs (Fig. 3)
and Samuel Sumner (Fig. 4) in Pomfret. Though both stones are dated 1781,
they differ considerably in style. TTiey also differ from Richard's earlier
stones, indicating that he may have continued his gravestone cutting while
living in St. John's. On the Griggs stone a pair of plain spreading wings sup-
port the head; a pattern of small three-leaf flowers forms the border. The
Samuel Sumner stone, which more nearly resembles Richard's most common
designs, has long-feathered wings attached to the sides of the head, while the
flowered borders are more informal.

Fig. 3 Solomon Griggs 1781. Sabin Burying Ground, Pomfret.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

192

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 4 Deacon Samuel Sumner 1781. Sabin Burying Ground, Pomfret.
Photograph by Farbers from rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

The Kimballs

193

Kimball stones somewhat similar to the Samuel Sumner marker are to be
found in many eastern Connecticut towns between Pachaug and the
Woodstocks. The full, square-jowled faces on these stones (Figs. 5, 6, 7 and
8) usually show bushy eyebrows and squinting, almond-shaped eyes, although
sometimes the eyes are angular. A triangular nose is accompanied by a
small, inappropriate cupid's-bow mouth. The lettering, which is usually very
good, is characterized by carefully cut numerals. The numerals 3, 5, 7 and 9
extend below the line, while the 6 and 8 extend above the line. The borders
are decorated with various floral designs.

The reason for placing Richard in Lebanon^ sometime after his sixtieth
year is the existence of a stone made by him which is dated 1783, and which
marks the grave of Roger Huntington of Lebanon. This stone shows a
Richard Kimball angel adjusting his crown as he ascends to heaven. Many
more of Richard's stonecutting characteristics are seen on the Huntington
stone, such as heavy eyebrows, rhombic eyes, cleft chin, typical lettering and

Fig. 5 Appleton Holbrook 1767. Sabin Burying Ground, Pomfret.
Photograph by Farbers.

194

Connecticut Gravestones

ere. l^elrri ,^;|
f l\/lr3 P.e

r^- r-^.

Fig. 6 Rebekah Sharpe 1780. Sabin Burying Ground, Pomfret.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

"^'^

J i

■^'O -- i^-^ ^d-idA

Fig. 7 Lydia Fuller 1765. Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

The Kimballs 195

diamond borders. These borders are duplicates of those on the stone for
Richard's daughter in Hampton (Fig. 2). Except for the raised arms, there is
nothing unusual about the Huntington stone, because it closely resembles
scores of other stones which may be seen throughout a large part of eastern
Coimecticut.

Lebbeus Kimball (1751-C.1832)

Richard Kimball's son, Lebbeus, was born in Pomfret in 1751. He
answered the Lexington Alarm, and served in the war as a sergeant. He
married Sarah Craft in 1778, and at least two of his children were born in
Pomfret before 1784. A Pomfret gravestone maker like his father, Lebbeus
first followed the style he inherited from Richard, but then shifted toward the
dominant Manning style that proliferated in Eastern Connecticut in the
second half of the eighteenth century. That he imitated Richard's stones
closely is indicated by two stones standing side by side in Hampton which are
so much alike that it is difficult to tell them apart. They are inscribed with
the same versed including the same mispelled word: ". . . and fallow me you
must." Yet the stone for John Fuller, dated 1777 (Fig. 9), was "Cut by Leb-
beus Kimball," while the other for Hannah Fuller, dated 1780 (Fig. 8), was
signed "Richard Kimball." Because these stones are so similar, it is obvious
that Lebbeus, during his formative years, was very much under the influence
of his father.

However, he was also capable of original work. A stone in Pomfret made
for George Sumner and his five daughters, who died within five weeks of
each other, is probably the work of Lebbeus (Fig. 10). (The estate of George
Sumner paid him £7-4-0 for four pairs of grave stones in March, 1783.) It has
some characteristics of Richard's work, but additionally has a jewelled crown
and double-scalloped borders which were contributed by Lebbeus. The
American eagle on the gravestone of Lucy Fuller of Hampton, dated 1785
(Fig. 11), which has typical Kimball lettering (including the ampersand), as
well as the scalloped borders favored by Lebbeus, was also cut by the
younger carver.

At about the time of his removal from Pomfret to Lebanon,^ Lebbeus
shifted to the Manning style. The date of this removal can be fixed between

196

Connecticut Gravestones

May, 1783, the date the birth of his son Sylvester Kimball was recorded in
Pomfret, and January, 1786, when he was mentioned in one of Jonathan
Trumbull's account books. (In August, 1786, he was on the Lebanon tax list
as the owner of five cows and a horse. A son. Craft Payson Kimball, was
born in Lebanon in 1788.) This shift in style can be seen in its initial phase
on a stone in Lebanon made for Pelatiah Webster (Fig. 12) which has both
Kimball and Manning characteristics. The cupid's bow mouth, cleft chin, al-
mond eyes, and double-scalloped borders suggest the work of Lebbeus; the
upswept hair and one-piece wings suggest a Manning influence. The culmina-
tion of this shift is found on the gravestones of Elisabath (sic) Arnold of
Lebanon (Figs. 13 and 14), and of Peter Robinson of Scotland, both dated
1785, both signed by Lebbeus; and a gravestone for William Allen of
Lebanon, who died in 1787 and whose estate paid Lebbeus £3-10-0. Except
for their lettering, all three of these stones reflect a decided Manning ap-
pearance. About that time, the two Manning boys were embarking on their

Wet H

^Okilltmhl

Fig. 8 Hannah Fuller 1780. Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

The Kimballs

197

Fig. 9 John Fuller 1777. Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.
Photograph by Farbers from rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

irn I 6tmQi^/ol'I'4r Geoj??^

-J '.J ) ) n

Fig. 10 George Sumner and daughters c. 1783.
Sabin Burying Ground, Pomfret. Photograph by Peter Benes.

198

Connecticut Gravestones

own careers as stonecutters, and possibly Lebbeus worked for one of them.
But since the Mannings were exceedingly popular, it is also possible that Leb-
beus thought it necessary to imitate their style to obtain his share of the
gravestone trade. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish late Kimball from
Manning stones, except for the lettering. The pompadour hair style fre-
quently extends higher on Kimball stones. Lebbeus, in particular, was more
prone to spelling errors, such as: "Here lays intered . . . ." Lebbeus even-
tually abandoned the cleft chin, made his faces thinner, and gradually
changed his eyes into perfect circles. Most of these characteristics are seen
on the gravestone of John Moore of Union, whose estate paid Lebbeus £ 1-
18-0 in 1787.

Fig. 11 Lucy Fuller 1785. South Burying Ground, Hampton.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

The Kimballs

199

The Kimballs were a restless family. By 1790 Lebbeus had moved again,
this time to Mohawk, New York; and he was living in Canajoharie in 1832.
He probably continued making gravestones after he left Connecticut, al-
though this period of his artistic life has not yet been investigated. It is pos-
sible that he occasionally returned to Connecticut to make stones such as the
one for Samuel Craft in Abington, dated 1791.

Fig. 12 Peletiah Webster 1785. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.
Photograph by Farbers.

200

Connecticut Gravestones

mUti.

.1 \ tMiA'jU

Fig. 13 Elisabath Arnold 1785. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

t/ W4

Fig. 14 Elisabath Arnold 1785. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

The Kimballs 201

Chester Kimball (1763-1824)

Chester Kimball, brother of Lebbeus, was born in St. John's, New
Brunswick, September 19, 1763. He returned to Connecticut with his family,
first to Pomfret, then to Lebanon.^ It was natural that he should also become
a stonecutter, but instead of joining his father or brother, he was partial to
the brownstone quarries in Chatham, where he may have gone for expert
training under the first of the Thomas Johnsons. In 1786 he married Lucy
Fox of Chatham. Three daughters of John and Mary (Waterman) Fox had a
profound interest in those brownstone quarries, possibly because they were
primarily interested in geology, although all three just happened to marry
young and husky gravestone cutters who worked there!

Though his father and brother moved to New York state, the independent
Chester went to New London, There he advertised on April 11, 1786:

CHESTER KIMBALL

Respectfully informs the public that he has set up the STONE CUTTER'S busi-
ness in this city, on Main street, opposite the new meeting-house, where he
makes Tombstones, Grave-stones, Steps, Hearths, Jaumbs, Sinks, &c. of the
Middletown Stone.

The earliest record of Chester's gravestones found so far was dated Sep-
tember 29, 1787, when he was paid £2-8-0 for a pair of stones for William
Avery, Esquire, of Groton. Carved of Middletown brownstone, the decora-
tive work on this marker consisted of an urn in the classical-revival style.
From this we can infer that the independent Chester had abandoned both the
Richard Kimball and Manning style of angels.

The gravestone business was nevertheless very good to Chester. In March,
1795, he advertised that he wanted: "immediately, an active lad, from 14 to
15 years of age, as an apprentice." A few months later he moved to a new
shop on Beech Street, where he kept on display some "Lanesborough
(Massachusetts) Marble, suitable for grave stones." By 1797 he had an agent
in Stonington who took orders for lettering ready-made stones from the
Chatham quarries. Like other Connecticut stonecutters of the late
eighteenth century, he worked more and more on marble. In 1799 he needed
another apprentice, for he had just received "A Quantity of white Marble,

202 Connecticut Gravestones

Suitable for Grave Stones. Likewise Clouded Marble, suitable for Jambs and
Mantletree Pieces." His prices were as low as any, even in New York. He fre-
quently charged for "extry writing" in addition to the gravestones at the rate
of one and a half to three cents per letter.

Between 1811 and 1813 he formed the partnership of Chester Kimball "&
Son," at one time meaning Chester, Junior, (1790-1823), and at another time
meaning Gurdon (1781-1871). These partnerships did not last very long, and
Gurdon, at least, who previously had been a blacksmith, continued independ-
ently as a stonecutter. Chester, Sr., had branch offices in Chelsea (Norwich),
Stonington, and Mill Town (North Stonington); the last two were in the
stores of other men. As soon as he would receive sufficient orders at a
branch office, he would go there for four or five days at a time to do inscrip-
tions, meanwhile retaining his main shop in New London.

On June 28, 1820, he said in one of his numerous advertisements that he
would sell gravestones "as low as any of his craft from any quarter, let their
pretensions be what they may. Those who wish to purchase Marble are in-
vited to call and see for themselves, before they purchase of those who are in
the habit of carrying their work abroad after it is completed." These remarks
were aimed at a competitor, David A. Rogers, who also advertised frequently
in the Connecticut Gazette that he had a shop on Beech Street and had hired
a skillful Philadelphia craftsman to do his engraving. A large marble monu-
ment, dated 1818, for Anna, wife of Dr. William Lord of Old Lyme, bears
Chester's engraved signature, as did another in Brooklyn, Connecticut.^

Chester Kimball died January 2, 1824, a wealthy man for that day. His to-
tal estate, which amounted to $6,371.25, included mahogany Pembroke
tables, a cherry desk, Windsor chairs, Liverpoolware and blue-edged plates.
His dwelling house and garden were valued at $1,600.00. In his shop, which
was then occupied by his son Gurdon, there were all kinds of stonecutting
tools and some unfinished marble and marble and freestone. He also owned
stock and tools at Norwich and Stonington. One very important item for his
trade, "A Book of Epitaphs," was also among his belongings. His business
was continued by his one-time apprentice and partner, James Bloyd Lyman
(1799-1865), who first married Chester's daughter Abigail, and later on, her
sister Charlotte.

The KJmballs 203

NOTES

1. According to Alfred Fredette of Willimantic, Connecticut, an authority on the Kimballs,
there are at least four of Richard's signed stones.

2. Despite secondary hints, there is no evidence that Richard or any of his sons except Leb-
beus were living at any time in Lebanon, agetin according to Mr. Fredette.

3. Fredette tells me that Richard actually died at the age of ninety, as shown on his grave-
stone in Ames, N.Y. (south of CanajohcU-ie). His stone was carved and signed by Chester
Kimball. Richard's son Lebbeus is buried to the left of his father. He died September 4,
1839, in his eighty-ninth year. Both actually lived in Ames, N.Y.

4. This stone is in the north burying ground in Hampton, but is fallen and badly eroded
though still legible. Another example of the folly of leaving historically valuable stones ex-
posed to New England winters.

5. See note 2.

6. The fairest flesh

Is buried in the dust

Prepare for death

For fsdlow me you must.

7. See note 2.

8. See note 2.

9. As well as several signed marble stones in and adjacent to Montgomery County, N.Y. And
Mr. Fredette also states that there is a signed "flared ear" sandstone in Nova Scotia.

204

Connecticut Gravestones

',r

= h^' ' I il'i!

^7;.^ri y '/"Y'.

J. i

r/ /^

^W:

&«^''<3B«WJ^1|r^*««'^^J'lf?V<*t ••■ '

Fig. 1 West children 1755. Tolland. Photograph by Farbers.

The Bucklands 205

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XIV
The Bucklands*

William Buckland (1727-1795)

Since their arrival in Connecticut during the seventeenth century, most of
the Bucklands of Windsor and East Hartford had been weavers. The probate
papers for the William Buckland who died during the great influenza
epidemic of 1724-1725, for example, list in great detail all the appurtenances
of the weaver's trade; they also show that he had been unusually successful in
his business. After setting aside for his widow one-third of his estate, thought-
fully including "one third part of the Cellar; and the Liberty of Bakeing in the
ovens," he left his shop to his son John; another son, Sargeant William (1700-
1758), similarly continued the weaver's trade, perhaps doing some woodwork
on the side. With this background it seems most unusual at first glance that
two boys of the next generation, William, Jr., and Peter, should go into the
business of making gravestones, because in those days, young men usually fol-
lowed the family trade.

Little is known about the early life of these two sons of Sargeant William.
William, Junior, who was baptized July 30, 1727, the first of eleven children,
worked at least part of the time in association with his father. During Sep-
tember and October, 1752, when the father was buying nails, brads, and
similar items from John Potwine's store, the goods were usually delivered to
the son. The following year the father, "for Love and Affection," transferred
to the son one-half of the family homestead. At this time, the part of
Hartford known then as "The Five Miles," now Manchester, was beginning to
change from a wilderness to a partially-industrialized community, due in
some measure to the increasing business of a valuable quarry near the East
Windsor line. The stones from this quarry were used primarily for making
jambs, or fireplace walls, and it became known as "The Jambstone Quarry"
and the adjoining area as "The Jambstone Plain." Because the quarry was
just to the north of some of his father's lands, it would have been natural for

* This is the second article based on Dr. Caulfield's unpublished material and edited by
Peter Benes.

206 Connecticut Gravestones

inquisitive young William to become interested in this rapidly growing in-
dustry. Besides, his aunt Anne Buckland had married a stonecutter, the
younger James Forbes. Other men may have influenced William to take up
stonecutting as a trade. He must have known Daniel Chandler (1729-1790),
who not only owned the quarries but who also appears to have made oc-
casional gravestones. In that neighborhood also lived the carver Gershom
Bartlett (1723-1798), who undoubtedly knew the Buckland boys, because the
gravestones for their mother, Elizabeth Buckland, who died in East Hartford
in 1752, were cut by Bartlett in the manner of his very popular hook-and-eye
design. It is doubtful that Buckland was apprenticed either to Chandler or to
Bartlett, because there was not a great deal of difference in their ages.

There were at least two older stonecutters in that neighborhood who could
have taught the fundamentals of the trade to all three young men, however.
Thomas Ritter (1720-1770), first of a family that later became famous
throughout most of Connecticut for their gravestones, had come from
Rowley, Massachusetts, to East Hartford in 1739; and Joseph Johnson (1698-
C.1770), a skillful Middletown artist, who temporarily resided in East
Hartford from 1742 until 1750. On closer study, therefore, it appears that
though William Buckland, Junior, did not inherit any predisposition to work
in stone, at least he was brought up in an environment favorable to his
development as a stone engraver.

First-hand evidence that young William carved gravestones is a signature,
obviously put there as an advertisement, on a very unusual triple stone (Fig.
1) made for the three children of Amasa and Amy West who died in Tolland
in March, 1755, all within forty-eight hours and probably from diphtheria.
This stone shows an unmistakable Gershom Bartlett influence because its
hook-and-eye design is similar to Bartlett's except that the features were exag-
gerated to create a ludicrous bulbous nose and tiny close-set eyes. Neither a
skull nor a face (it was a curious combination of the two), Bartlett's own
design was at least as ludicrous as William's copy. Bartlett in fact was prob-
ably trying to imitate the unwieldy double nose of a winged-skull design of
the unidentified "Horseshoe skull" carver who was active in the 1740s on the
east side of the Great River (East Hartford, East Windsor). This carver is
believed to be William Holland. An imitation twice removed from its

The Bucklands 207

original design source (see Fig. 5, Connecticut Gravestones VJ), Buckland's
and Bartlett's bulbous nose was a "folk" or unconscious stylistic corruption of
what was otherwise a commonplace design in central Connecticut in 1750.
Despite the exaggeration of its design, the West children stone also shows
that by this time William Buckland was an accomplished workman. Stones of
this irregular shape were exceedingly difficult to complete without breaking
off some corners; the edges are embellished with an attractive and symmetri-
cal flower border; and a close examination of the inscription shows that each
single letter was cut by a careful hand. In fact, the obvious errors on the
stone can be attributed to too much care rather than too little, because it was
very easy to omit a whole word while intensely concentrating on single let-
ters.

Regardless of its poor spacing, the signature on the West stone, "Made by
W.m. Buckland Ir. of Hartford," is very valuable because it helps to identify
more of his early stones. There are about six gravestones in East Hartford
and in Tolland which so closely resemble the West stone that they may
reasonably be attributed to William, Junior, while he was still under the
Bartlett influence. The stone for William's twenty-four year old first wife,
Hannah (Burnham) Buckland (East Hartford, 1755) (Fig. 2), virtually dupli-
cates the West stone, as does that of Amy West (Tolland, 1756) (Fig. 3). The
stone for William's uncle, Jonathan Cole (East Hartford, 1753) (Fig. 4), and
Ann West (Tolland, 1755) (Fig. 5) are not quite as ludicrous since their noses
are more pointed than they are bulbous, but in most other ways both are
stylistically similar to their predecessors. The borders of all four stones could
easily be mistaken for Bartlett borders, but the features, particularly the dis-
proportionate size of the nose and eyes, indicate that the stones were
engraved by William.

When his father died in 1758, William, Junior, being the eldest son, in-
herited a double share of the estate; and subsequently he bought many pieces
of land "in the five Miles so called," most of them near the East Windsor line.
Nothing was said about a quarry in those transactions, so he probably bought
his unfinished stones from someone else, either in Windsor or from the
"Jambstone Quarry" in East Windsor. Nor was anything said to indicate that
he was in the gravestone business, although apparently he not only remained

208 Connecticut Gravestones

in it but prospered. If one looks beyond the outlandish facial designs of his
early stones it becomes increasingly apparent that Buckland's heart was in his
work and that it was his chosen profession ~ otherwise he would not have
spent so much time and care with his borders and lettering. It is easy to im-
agine that he had decided on stonecutting as a lifetime career by 1755 or
1756, even though his bulbous-nose designs are not found after those years.

Because he shifted from one style to another, it is not always easy to iden-
tify with certainty the many stones he probably made during the remainder of
his stay in "the five Miles." An indication of how greatly William had altered
his style after 1756 is found on the gravestone for Rachel Lothrop of Tolland,
who died in 1754 (Fig. 6). (Though dated 1754, this stone was probably made
a few years later.) Like the West stone, the Lothrop stone was signed by Wil-
liam, although his signature in this instance is written in tiny letters and
placed so near the ground that it is usually obscured by grass. The stone has
numerous similarities with the West children marker. For example, he again
did not allow enough space for his name and he had to omit the a and
reverse the d in the word "Buckln"." He also made major errors in the in-
scription, but this time they cannot be excused on the ground of over-
concentration. Among these errors is a backward p and a backward capital
N. (On another stone of this type he misspelled "Memmory," for which there
is no excuse, and which suggests that like many colonial stonecutters he was
more skillful with his hands than with his head.)

Major differences nevertheless exist between the newer Lothrop marker
and the West children stone. The border work is considerably altered, for
example. Rather than a simple vine-and-leaf pattern which repeated itself
five or six times, he devised a more sophisticated vertical-leaf vine which
repeated itself only two or three times (Fig. 6). It is in the spirit carving,
however, that the most sweeping changes are found. Gone are the dispropor-
tionately sized hook-and-eye face details, as well as the ludicrous scowl. In
their place are more moderate hook-and-eye features and a normal mouth
which includes within it what might be intended as a protruding tongue.
Perhaps the only important holdover from his bulbous nose variants are the
familiar residual teeth which are found in the form of a zigzag or serration on
the bottom of the chin.

The Bucklands

209

hpJof[T--!-Un[f.,!-:.;,-

rrrd

Fig. 2 Hannah Buckland 1755. Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.

^*|/.V|..,

Fig. 3 Amy West 1756. Tolland. Photograph by Farbers.

210 Connecticut Gravestones

Beyond his two signed stones, we can only speculate as to the extent of
William's stonecutting activities. A search of Hartford District probate
records reveals that his name was found in the papers of four estates. He
was paid £1-10-0 from the estate of Benjamin Cheney in 1760; £1-10-0 from
that of Samuel Elmer in 1761; and £3-14-7 from that of Simon Gains in 1761.
These records do not say that he was paid for gravestones, although £1-10-0
would have been a fair price for them about that time. While the headstones
for Benjamin Cheney and Simon Gains have not survived, the stones for their
wives, Elizabeth Cheney, who died in 1759, and Sarah Gains (Fig. 7), who
died in 1758, may still be seen in Manchester. The headstone for Jabez
Burnham (1758) still stands in East Hartford, and that for Samuel Elmer
(1759) in East Windsor. It seems much more than a coincidence that all four
headstones should so closely resemble one another as to be almost indistin-
guishable in design and lettering; that they should also closely resemble the
headstone for Sargeant William Buckland, William Buckland's father, who
died in 1758; and further, that all four should closely resemble the signed
stone of Rachel Lx)throp of Tolland. Inasmuch as William, a gravestone cut-
ter, was a creditor of all five widely separated estates, the documentary
evidence strongly supports the stylistic evidence that he made all five
headstones.

If William in fact made these stones (as seems most likely), it means that
his initial gravestone style had changed radically in the space of four or five
years - excepting perhaps his lettering, which remained much as it was on
the West children stone. This is compatible with at least one additional piece
of evidence. Gershom Bartlett had moved to Bolton in 1752 and was prob-
ably no longer an influence on young William, who instead may have come
under the spell of Thomas Ritter of East Hartford. The facial designs,
crowns, and particularly the borders on William's 1758-1759 stones have little
in common with either Bartlett's or even William Buckland's own earlier
style. They have much in common, however, with the style that may have
been used by Ritter circa 1760 and may have been devised by Ritter himself
or perhaps by Ritter and Buckland working in partnership after 1755. A few
years had made a tremendous difference in William's advance from the
ridiculous to the more sublime.

The Bucklands

211

''hbrc\

•i'^

^^ VI Hf.^ /\xo

Fig. 4 Jonathan Cole 1753. Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.
Photograph by Farbers.

o '2r<=- r^ In re rr^ f/a^ / ^
^"^^ /^/^fr. Daur-hfer cFm^^-

Fig. 5 Ann West 1755. Tolland. Photograph by Peter Benes.

212

Connecticut Gravestones

■] • ;

.•»

Fig. 6 Rachel Lothrop 1754. Tolland.

Turning for a moment from his spirit carvings and borders, we find that
William Buckland's footstones also provide evidence pointing him out as the
carver of the later (1756-1759) Tolland/East Hartford stone groups.
Footstone designs were sometimes used by stonecutters as a trademark -- not
an absolute trademark in the modern sense, because one stonecutter would
sometimes imitate another, inasmuch as there was no law to prevent him
from doing so, but enough of a trademark to help identify the work of a stylis-
tically versatile carver like William. Buckland's footstones are particularly
interesting because they also illustrate his change in styles. Although superfi-
cially dissimilar, the footstones for Hannah Buckland (Fig. 8) and Jonathan
Cole (Fig. 9) (made circa 1755) have enough elements in common with the
footstone for the West children to confirm our belief they were all made by
William. While cut in a related but different style, the footstones for Ben-
jamin Cheney, Jabez Burnham and Sarah Gains (made circa 1760) also
closely resemble one another. An interesting additional fact is that the
footstones for Elizabeth Cheney and Sergeant William Buckland (Fig, 10)
belong to the earlier period, whereas their corresponding headstones belong

The Bucklands

213

to the later period. William apparently was unable to decide which style of
footstone appealed to him the more; or, he may have stockpiled the earlier
style and was trying to "use them up."

Comparable evidence is gained from stones William Buckland made for
children. It was a common gravestone custom in those days to mark
children's graves with small headstones, and sometimes to decorate them in
the style usually found on the footstones of adults. With that in view one may
at least tentatively attribute to William the headstone for Richard Rust (Fig.
11) (Manchester, 1756) because the delicate, flowery tracings are similar to
those found on William's early footstones. Similar headstones for children
may be seen in Tolland -- for example, that of Thankful West, who died in
1754.

c'i"c3 f -r-.v frift^'cf A/!

Fig. 7 Sarah Gains 1758. East Burying Ground, Manchester.
Photograph by Farl^rs.

214

Connecticut Gravestones

A good case can be made for William Buckland as the carver of other at-
tractive stones on the east side of the river. The stone for Isaac Fellows of
Tolland (Fig, 12), who died in 1755, has the same irregular profile, the same
space fillers and the same lettering that appear on the signed West stone;
that of Clemence Olmsted, who died in Manchester in 1755, has comparable
eye and eyebrow characteristics. Both these stones have the same protruding
"tongue" found on the signed Lothrop stone. In the absence of more defini-
tive records, however, it is perhaps not wise to attribute to William too many
of the seventy or more red sandstone markers in the burying grounds of East
Hartford, Tolland, East Windsor, and Glastonbury which share his charac-
teristic borders and spirit designs, and whose inscription dates are spread
over a fifteen-year period between 1754 and 1769. Thomas Ritter used, on at
least one occasion, virtually the same design and lettering on a stone he
placed in New Hartford. In addition, William's brother, Peter Buckland,
freely copied William's style, and indeed appears to have worked /or William

Fig. 8 Hannah Buckland 1755. Footstone.
Center Burying Ground, East Hartford. Photograph by Peter Benes.

The Bucklands

215

/ .~\

...^ K- V

^^:^

Fig. 9 Jonathan Cole 1753. Footstone.
Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.

Fig. 10 Sarj* William Buckland 1758. Footstone.
Center Burying Ground, East Hartford. Photograph by Farbers.

216

Connecticut Gravestones

until about 1760 and with him on and off for another seven years. For ex-
ample, a gravestone in East Windsor (Abigail Loomis, 1760) which exhibits
many of William's presumed characteristics has misspelled in its inscription
the word "Boody" for "Body," a very unusual gravestone error. This same er-
ror occurs on a later stone nearby which was cut in Peter's style. Moreover,
there were five more brothers in the Buckland family and any one of them
could have tried his hand at gravestones. Because of the great similarity in
their styles, all three carvers are possible candidates for these stones, and it
seems even more than possible that all three worked in partnership. Until
better evidence is uncovered, one has to be content to describe most of these
stones as the Buckland (and possibly Ritter) design.

By September, 1783, William had sold most of his land in Orford Parish
(the new name for Manchester), apparently in anticipation of his moving
away. On June 5, 1768, "William Buckland ... of Poultney, Vermont" sold
his last acre in Orford to the Widow Evans for twenty-four shillings. He is
said to have died in Poultney on March 11, 1795.

Fig. 11 Richard Rust 1756. East Burying Ground, Manchester.

The Bucklands

217

, \iijnjnjsjf' '"■ • ,.

vx/ <H.

') (

f II

\(^

'/ . J¥

. , .:,{•■■

Fig. 12 Isaac Fellows 1755. Tolland. Photograph by Farbers.

218 Connecticut Gravestones

Peter Buckland (1738-1816)

Peter Buckland, the brother of William Buckland, Junior, was born in
1738 and was the second in line to William, although there was an eleven-
year difference in their ages. Since his older brother was proficient in
making gravestones, there was every reason for the younger Peter to follow
his example. We can assume also that the two probably worked together for
a few years, especially since Peter is known to have acted as William's agent
in some real estate transactions in 1760. At least some stylistic evidence sup-
ports this hypothesis because some of the stones that can definitively be as-
signed to one or the other are almost impossible to tell apart. When he was
twenty-five years old, recently married, and the new owner of additional land,
Peter no doubt decided that the time had come to be independent, signing
his own name to the stone he made for Deacon Daniel House of East Glas-
tonbury (now Eastbury), who died in 1762 (Fig. 13). This gravestone was
made from a red sandstone similar to the kind that William used, and the
style reflects William's influence to a marked degree. The irregular shape,
long leaf-and-vine borders, and the lower-case lettering all indicate that it
was slowly and carefully cut, and, if this were the only extant example of
Peter's style, it would be very difficult to separate his work from William's,
particularly since both were proficient at making backward N's.

Some design elements of the House stone, however, seem to have been
Peter's own. Both the grape clusters and twin hearts-on-stems are motifs
found on other stones in East Glastonbury that might reasonably be at-
tributed to Peter Buckland - for example those of Elzebuth Hubbard and the
Reverend Isaac Chalker, who served the East Society at Glastonbury as pas-
tor for twenty-five years. Both the Chalker and the Hubbard markers are
made of William's usual red sandstone, and both have borders similar to
those carved by William - again excepting the thin curly lines on the leaves,
which William did not seem to use. We can therefore tentatively assign the
heart and grape motifs to Peter, along with the curling lines - and this with
some confidence because grape-like design elements are found on Peter's
later signed schist and granite stones. Numerous other red sandstone
markers dated 1756-1769 in Tolland, East Hartford, East Windsor, and Glas-
tonbury, may also be attributed, on a provisional basis, to Peter Buckland for

The Bucklands 219

these (and other) reasons, among them the stone of Charles West of Tolland
(Fig. 14) and of Lieutenant Nathaniel Olcott of East Glastonbury. All,
however, in one way or another resemble the stones we have attributed to
brother William, and until additional evidence is found by which we can dis-
tinguish between their work, we must assume that they shared a common
workshop 1754-1769, and that they sometimes shared responsibility for the
same stone.

Fig. 13 Deacon Daniel House 1762. Eastbury Burying Ground, Glastonbury.

Photograph by Farbers.

220

Connecticut Gravestones

In 1767 Peter sold most of his property, consisting of forty-six acres of land
"On the east side of the Great River ... in the five Miles so called . . . with
the Mansion House I now live in and the Barn" for £20, which was con-
siderably less than its value when he acquired it. Possibly he went to Bolton
to work with the popular Gershom Bartlett, because shortly thereafter he
worked a good deal on gray schist and seems to have taken a great fancy to
many aspects of Bartlett's gravestone style. Two schist stones in
Wethersfield, for example, those of John Knowles and James Knowles (they
died, respectively, 1765 and 1766) could at first sight be mistaken for Bartlett
stones similar to that of Jonathan Marsh (Wethersfield, 1766). Both
Bartlett's original and Peter Buckland's imitations share the same nebulous
masses protruding from the ears (these are presumably wings) and the same
stylized borders. The two Knowles stones, however, were unquestionably
made by Peter Buckland, not only because of the backward N's but more par-
ticularly because the footstone design (a pinwheel and slanting letter J) is cut

lerclyc\vyfl3(x[:
I' ( ha rlc'r^' \h cVo

Fig. 14 Charles West 1760. Tolland. Photograph by Farbers.

The Bucklands 221

in the style that Peter generally used. In 1771 he was paid £0-9-5 from the
estate of Jedediah Spencer of East Hartford, his brother-in-law, and he was
also paid £0-3-0 from the estate of Benjamin Damon of Manchester. While
these amounts may have been too small for gravestones, it so happens that
the graves of both of these men are marked by gray schist stones with back-
ward N's, and also Spencer's footstone has the slanting letter J and pinwheel
characteristic of Peter's style. During this period Peter Buckland was not too
fussy with spelling, and it was typical of him to inscribe a stone in Glaston-
bury: "Hear Lies Interd . . . SARAH HALE late wife to TIMOTHY HAEL."
Even if Peter did work with Bartlett, it could have been only a temporary
arrangement at the most, because advertisements in the January, 1771, issue
of the Connecticut Courant reveal that he had again decided to be independ-
ent:

The Subscriber hereby informs the

public that he has set up the business of
making GRAVESTONES of all sorts in Hartford
Five-Miles. And if the public will favor him with
their custom, they shall have their work done in the
best manner, and at the cheapest rate, for Cash or
Produce in hand,

by me, PETER BUCKLAND

Jan 3, 1771

A casual inspection of old graveyards in Hartford County indicates at once
that Peter Buckland collected considerable "Cash or Produce" for his handi-
work, and at least part of the reason for his success was that he continued ad-
vertising in other ways in towns such as Glastonbury. On three of the many
gray schist stones he placed in the west parish burying ground of Glastonbury
he carved his name in a conspicuous place very near the top ~ a place that
was usually reserved for the name of the deceased. The signed stones for
Sybil Eells (Fig. 15) and Abigail Merick, both dated 1773, as well as a similar
but unsigned stone nearby for Benjamin Judd dated 1774, reveal that he still
did not know how to make an N. He was beginning to learn, nevertheless,
because on another signed stone (Isaac Mosely, 1773), the N was correctly
cut, and on the stone for John Goodrich, whose estate paid Peter £3-0-0 in
1774, the N is also correct. In many ways, the qualities that make these

222

Connecticut Gravestones

Stones distinctive are difficult to describe -- perhaps it is their oriental expres-
sions, with raised eyebrows; or the sparse "beards"; or the small, straight
mouths and notched, angular noses. Peter was also partial to hearts, tassels,
pinwheels and stars, and used them interestingly, if sometimes indis-
criminately, to fill up empty spaces; yet there is no one motif in his stones
that cannot be found on those made by other men.

Fig. 15 Sibil Eells 1773. Green Burying Ground, Glastonbury.
Photograph by Farbers.

The Bucklands

223

A search of probate records shows that Peter Buckland was paid from the
following estates:

Hezekiah Hubbard, Jr., Glastonbury 1784 £2-0-0

Elijah Hollister, South Glastonbury 1785 2-13-2

Jonathan Mygatt, East Hartford 1786 0-11-7

Joseph Churchill, Glastonbury 1788 2-4-9

Jonathan Hills, East Hartford 1776 3-0-0

(for "Grave Stones") (Fig. 16)

Ashbel Cowles, East Hartford 1793 2-10-0

(for "Grave Stones")

Fig. 16 Jonathan Hills 1776. Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.

224 Connecticut Gravestones

Some of this information helps to identify Peter as the man who made scores
of nearly identical stones in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, such as
the ones for Mercy Daman and her husband Benjamin of Manchester and
Sarah Goodrich of Glastonbury.^ We soon note that in these later designs
the serrated skeletal jaw (which he had carried as a superfluous or vestigial
element for twenty-five or more years) gradually became a pointed chin. To
what extent his brother, William Buckland, was involved in this production
before his departure for Poultney, Vermont, circa 1784, is still not known, al-
though we find occasional evidence to suggest that he was involved at least to
some extent. Whatever its extent, Peter's indisputable comercial success had
a harmful influence on the overall charm of his style. In time, both his
designs and his lettering became more conventional and therefore less inter-
esting; and most of his distinguishing characteristics were lost in quantity
production. His stones became monotonously alike, although he still
reserved the right to use his own peculiar brand of spelling. For these
reasons it seems safe to attribute to him the stone in East Hartford for
"PHENEHAS BURNHAM . . . who died TRYUMPHINGLY in hops of a
joyful RESURRECTION" in December, 1776 (Fig. 17).

Because most of his late stones were made of schist, Peter Buckland prob-
ably still lived in Orford, not too far from Bolton. But soon he was on the
move again. In March, 1788, "Peter Buckland of Hartford, Stone Cutter,"
with his partner "William Crosby, Stone Cutter" of Chatham, leased the up-
per quarries in Chatham from the third Thomas Johnson, and the following
August they bought the quarries outright. A few weeks later, however, Buck-
land and Crosby sold the quarries back to Johnson for the same amount that
they had paid, and Peter returned to Orford with nothing more to do with
Crosby. There exists a record dated 1788 indicating that Peter Buckland was
paid £17 for "A Sett of Tables" from the estate of Dr. and Mrs. Solomon
Smith of Hartford. This may refer to a tablestone still standing in the Center
Church graveyard in Hartford, although there is nothing very remarkable
about it, either in design or lettering.

The last known mention of Peter Buckland supplying a stone marker is
found in the estate papers of Ashbel Cowles of East Hartford (1793).
Enough still remains of this badly shaled sandstone to show that it originated

The Bucklands

225

in Chatham and that it is similar to several other stones in East Hartford
characterized by high, many-layered crowns, and touching fronds.^ The
design partially imitates that of the late Middletown school, suggesting that
Peter either bought a ready-made stone, or that he had been so greatly in-
fluenced during his short stay in Middletown that he decided to try his hand
at imitating what was then a very popular design.

During the 1790s Peter bought and sold more land in Orford and one of
these transactions indicates that he was living on a farm. On February 30 (!)
1799, he went into partnership again, this time with Charles Dolph, a
stonecutter then living in Manchester or Glastonbury but, like the Buckland-
Crosby partnership, this one also quickly dissolved, for in February of 1801,
Dolph, having moved away, sold his share of the dwelling house, farm and
other property back to Peter at a tidy profit. Later records of Peter are
obscured by the fact that his nephew, another Peter Buckland (Elisha's son),
began buying and selling land in Orford, East Windsor and in Bolton.

V -J /.^ /^

J ■

r*^.

• i

pi/pHEf^EH/:::' Con off^^

Fig. 17 Phenehas Burnham 1776. Center Burying Ground, East Hartford.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

226 Connecticut Gravestones

On March 12, 1816, "Captain" Peter Buckland, who had been made a Cap-
tain of the 9th Company, 19th Regiment in 1786, died from an "indisposition
of body" that had afflicted him for many years. No quarry was mentioned in
his probate papers, but his inventory Hsted "a piece of land on the mountain,"
and some stonecutting tools in a total estate of about $2,400.00. He was sur-
vived by his second wife, Dorcas (Case) "and family," though no children
were named in his will. A simple sandstone slab now marks his grave in
Manchester.

NOTES

1. The stones figured in the original text are of the "flared ear" type. Many carvers used this
design, but probably not Peter Buckland. Presumably it was a Portland carver's work. All
of the photographs appearing in the original text are not reproduced here, and there are
included some photographs not included in the original. Hence the numbering of figures is
different.

2. The figures in the original text are of elaborate "crowned" sandstones of a type known to
have been made by WilUam Crosby of Portland. Since Peter Buckland was in partnership
with WiUiam Crosby for a short period, he almost certainly brought these stones from
Portland and did not carve them himself.

if ^

%:/ ■ ■

Fig. 1 John Skinner 1773. Center Burying Ground, Hartford.
Carved by Joseph Tucker (Manning Imitator). Photograph by Peter Benes.

Three Manning Imitators 227

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XV
Three Manning Imitators*

Among the many gravestone makers active in eastern Connecticut in the
second half of the eighteenth century, the Manning family of Windham
(Josiah Manning and his two sons Frederick and Rockwell)^ were probably
the unchallenged leaders of the trade in terms of the numbers of stones they
produced. Several thousand Manning stones are found in a three-county
area east of the Connecticut River dated 1770 through 1790, with some in-
dividual examples dated in the first decade of the nineteenth century.
Known by their frightened, bloated-eyed angel heads and their downturned
mouths, Manning angels survived in the rural stronghold of eastern Connec-
ticut against the incursions of urban classic-revival decorative themes appear-
ing in Portsmouth, Boston, and other coastal towns, as well as against the
more sophisticated Hartford and Middletown school of angel carvers. We
can fairly say that the Manning angel, usually carved on a grey Bolton-
quarried granite, and whose late stylistic origins go back to the seventeenth
century Haverhill and Norwich carver Lt. John Hartshorn,^ is the most com-
mon stone in eastern Connecticut.

If we add to this equation the numerous carvers who at one time imitated
all or a portion of their designs, the dominance of the Manning family was
even greater than the quantity of their stones suggests. Including the Man-
ning family itself, eighteen^ major carvers in Connecticut and Vermont are
known to have used Manning-type angel designs - among them the Kimball
family of Pomfret and the Drake family of Windsor; some three or four addi-
tional carvers belonging to the late Merrimack school in southern New
Hampshire are also believed to have been influenced by Manning designs,
though the connection is still conjectural. In most instances the Manning in-
fluence on any individual carver is easily recognizable. Among the most com-
monly borrowed elements are the bloated, half-lidded eyes; the heavily-
outlined eyebrows; the downturned heavily-outlined mouth; the flamboyant

* This is the third article based on Dr. Caulfield's unpublished work and edited by Peter
Benes.

228

Connecticut Gravestones

headdresses; and semi-circular wings. Not all Manning imitators used all of
these elements simultaneously, and some, such as the Loomis family carvers,
seem to have borrowed much more from Obadiah Wheeler or the Kimballs
than from the Mannings. For the purpose of establishing order out of what
sometimes appears to be artistic chaos, Manning imitators can be roughly
classified as "close," "partial," or "ephemeral" - depending on the extent to
which they applied Manning characteristics to their own work. No matter
how we classify them, however, they all shed additional light onto stonecut-
ting as it was practiced in rural Connecticut at a time when it was in its last
years as a vernacular art form, threatened by English cultural modes of the
late colonial and early republican periods.

^^:i \Q.m Lies hlhrrly:Ba6-/^%

l^of Mi^Mfir:/-^ fc of rc^^

Ojyr 2 i'^AX 1772 iny? .en
^^.-zJ^'Ye^^ of'--horA§n.rdj
r^TT-khfe of herChUdrQjit%
J by har SHo vrrho all ^
5g1jjec[ Soon Afl^er ]:h^:'"<^

1>1*- JZJp-ZjmS-jf-- ""■-->(«(• JwP

Fig. 2 Mary Skinner 1772. Center Burying Ground, Hartford.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

Three Manning Imitators 229

Joseph Tucker (1735-1800)^

A stonecutter who followed the Manning design quite closely was a resi-
dent of nearby Bolton named Joseph Tucker. The oldest of eleven children,
Joseph Tucker was born on the Tucker family farm in the northeast comer of
Bolton, October 18, 1735. His father, Ephraim, a carpenter and farmer, was
also an active trader, for his name is found in many Hartford account books
from 1731 until he died in 1759. Joseph, also a carpenter and farmer, first
appears in the records in 1757 when he sold to Daniel Goodwin of Hartford
"500 Chesnut Rails Del. at ye River"; but little else is known about him until
he married Hannah Hammond in September, 1762. From then until 1791 he
bought and sold numerous pieces of land, especially in Bolton; and even-
tually he moved from the old family homestead to another homelot on the
west side of Cedar Swamp, now Bolton Lake. A witness to some of those
transactions was Gershom Bartlett, the most popular stonecutter in Bolton's
earlier history, and who also owned land in various parts of Bolton, some of it
"on the road to Joseph Tuckers." When Bartlett decided that frontier Ver-
mont was more lucrative than Connecticut for the gravestone business, his
friend and neighbor seized the opportunity to acquire a thriving trade, and
inserted the following advertisement in the Connecticut Courant:

JOSEPH TUCKER,

BEGS leave to inform the public that he has lately set up his business of engrav-
ing and making grave stones in Bolton, in the Quarrey lately occupied by Ger-
shom Bartlett, and as he has hired a very neat workman at the business,
whoever will employ him may depend on having their work done in the best
manner, and on the most reasonable terms.

Bolton, October 11, 1773

Although a great many stones in the Bolton graveyards no doubt
originated in his quarry, not many stones can be definitely attributed to
Joseph Tucker. He was paid £4-10-0 for two pairs of gravestones from the
estate of John Skinner, who died in Hartford in 1773, and we can assume that
these are by his hand. But, in view of Tucker's attempt to capitalize on Ger-
shom Bartlett's popularity, it is curious that the stones for John and Mary
Skinner should in no way resemble Bartlett's style. Instead, the bonnet-tied
faces on these stones (Fig. 1) suggest that they were made by someone

230 Connecticut Gravestones

trained under the Manning family carvers; and the lettering on the John Skin-
ner headstone and the pinwheel design on the corresponding footstone ap-
pear to have been cut by Peter Buckland.^ Joseph Tucker, therefore, seems
to have had some direct contact with Josiah Manning or his young sons
Frederick or Rockwell, and Peter Buckland may well have been Tucker's
"very neat workman," at least for a short time. This last supposition is sup-
ported by the fact that at least one additional stone purchased at this time by
the Skinner family, that for Mary, wife of John Skinner, Junior, (Hartford,
1772) (Fig. 2) is clearly the work of Peter Buckland.

Within four years, however. Tucker had exchanged the early Manning
style (bonnet-tied faces and banded wings) for the later Manning style
(bloated eyes and elaborate headdresses). An example is the stone of
Hezekiah King of Bolton (Fig. 3), who died in 1777 and whose estate paid
"To Joseph Tucker for Grave Stones . . . £7-17-6." Although Hezekiah's
headstone is now nearly destroyed, enough of it remains to show that it was
originally a duplicate of the stone for Isaac Sheldon of Hartford, who died in
1786 and whose estate paid Tucker £4-10-0. The design on these stones is
notably different from the designs on the Skinner stones, yet Tucker ap-
parently is responsible for all of them.^ The contradiction is partially
resolved by the double stone for Jonathan and Hannah Fowler found in the
old graveyard near the Nathan Hale homestead, a stone which shows ele-
ments of both designs. But the knowledge that one of these designs is fre-
quently found on stones that were made long after Tucker died casts some
doubt on his identity as a "working" stonecutter. It is possible that, like
Joshua Hempstead, he owned the business, but that his designs and lettering
were the handiwork of other carvers or of hired workmen. If it could be
proved more fully that one of the Mannings or even a Walden sometime
worked for Tucker or sold him pre-carved gravestone blanks, the uncertainty
would be more fully resolved.

Lieutenant Joseph Tucker died April 8, 1800; he was survived by his
widow and four of his six children. Only a few stonecutting tools were men-
tioned in his probate papers. His lands in Pittsford and Rochester, Vermont,
which he probably bought on speculation, were left to two of his sons. His
third son, Josiah, inherited all of his land in Bolton as well as his livestock

Three Manning Imitators

231

and farming utensils.

— K \ \ ^ - •

-V L-.t

^1 • -^ ^ -^^ -^ ^-«.»_ -^ --W -*w -V. -v_ '"%,M

Fig. 3 Hezekiah King 1777. Bolton. Photograph by Peter Benes.

John Walden I (c. 1682-1759)
John Walden II (1734-1807)
John Walden III (1752-1824)

A family who imitated the Manning design equally closely was the John
Waldens of Scotland. The Waldens' work is found throughout eastern Con-
necticut between the Woodstocks and the Sound. Their markers resemble
Manning stones in many respects, yet when examined closely they are seen to
have their own special characteristics. No doubt exists that the Waldens
were "working" carvers. At least sixteen stones, all dated between 1790 and
1804, were signed by them, sometimes merely by "JW," but more often by
"John Walden of Windham."^

Vital records concerning John Walden are confusing because there appear
to have been at least four of them, three of them in direct line. The only
reason for bringing the first John Walden (c. 1682-1759) into this discussion
is the signed gravestone in Scotland for Esther Palmer, dated 1754, which
was "Engraven by John Walden" (Fig. 4). This stone is decidedly different
from the later signed stones which were presumably made by his son, John

232

Connecticut Gravestones

Walden II (1734-1807). The headdress on the Palmer stone reminds one a
little of the Mannings, yet the stone differs from most Manning stones in its
borders and uplifted wings. The first John Walden was a farmer who left
nothing in his estate pertaining to stonecutting, so it is probable that the Pal-
mer stone represents the early work of his son, John II.

The second John Walden (1734-1807) grew up in Scotland. Inasmuch as
he owned some land near Merrick's Brook, he was both a neighbor and con-
temporary of Josiah Manning (1728-1806), and in fact this Manning signed a
John Walden land record dated 1760. If this second John Walden made the
Palmer stone in or just after 1754, he antedates Josiah Manning because the
latter did not cut stones much before 1761. However, when this second John
Walden lost a son Asa in 1760, the son's gravestone was made by Gershom
Bartlett - which makes it unlikely Walden was a professional stonecutter at
that time. The best hypothesis is that the Palmer stone was made much later
than 1754, say 1765 or 1770, and that Walden worked with Josiah Manning,
from whom he learned his trade.

•*.'•■- ^ •¥«. '{[.^ \ -"^ ''^- "

In Lleinory of M^:''

Fig. 4 Esther Palmer 1754. Scotland. Photograph by Farbers.

: i

Three Manning Imitators

233

This second John Walden married Sarah Parrish or Sarah Knight (the vi-
tal records are most confusing), probably the latter since the land records
favor her. They spent their lives in Scotland, where ten of their children were
born. Having proudly signed his name on the Palmer stone about 1765, why
did Walden not sign any more stones until about 1790? A fair number of
stones are found in Windham County dated in the 1770s and 1780s such as
the Sarah Kimball stone (1786) which are somewhat similar to the Palmer
stone and which can be at least tentatively attributed to this second John; but
none is signed, so far as is known. When again we find his signature, it is on a
changed stone (Fig. 5). The hair arrangement on the angels conforms closely
to the Manning design, as do the bloated eyes, half-circle eyebrows, upswept
wings, and semicircular border designs. A close examination, however,
reveals their faces are perfect circles, in contrast to the Mannings' oval faces,
and sometimes the bonnet strings appear to have been too tightly drawn. On
some stones, especially those dated in the late 1790s, Walden angels appear
on a background of weeping willows.

■^^

g i"-m^^^^^^^'^^^sm:s^^>^ ^li

Fig. 5 Mary Pearl 1790. Hammond Hill Burying Ground, Hampton.
Photograph by Farbers from rubbing by Kelly and Williams.

234 Connecticut Gravestones

Although there is one signed stone in Norwich with a border of three-
leaved clovers cut in the style that was later made popular by Amasa Loomis,
few of the later Walden stones show border ornamentation. But some are
distinguishable by their profiles, many of which are shaped like antique mir-
rors and frequently embellished with heavy scrolls. Nothing distinctive is
found in their lettering, except perhaps in the numerous errors which the
engraver could easily have avoided. He made mistakes even when carving
"Walden" or "Windham," indications of an intense concentration on the im-
mediate job at hand. Most of the stones were made of gray schist, though
there are at least one brownstone in Lisbon and two marble stones in
Westminister.

Except that he was chosen Deacon of the Brunswick Separate Church in
1777, little is known of the private life of the second John. He died Septem-
ber 10, 1807, and his wife died seventeen hours later, both probably from
dysentery which prevailed late that summer in Windham. His will suggests
that by that time he had abandoned stonecutting and had become primarily
occupied by farming because no quarries or stonecutting tools were men-
tioned in his estate. Seven of his ten children survived him. His sons John
and Silas were instructed to "provide decent gravestones" for their parents.

A third John Walden (1753-1824) also appears to have been a stone
engraver. One indication of this is found in signed receipts. Whereas a
receipt for gravestones in the estate of Daniel Bushnell of Lisbon (1798) is
signed "John Walden," similar receipts in the estates of Josiah Cleveland of
Canterbury (1793) and Joseph Bushnell of Lisbon (1796) are signed "John
Walden Jr." The signatures, as well as the signatures on the respective John
Walden wills, look so much alike that the handwriting is not a helpful means
of distinguishing them. However, the inclusion of "Jr." in some of the above
receipts is fairly good evidence that the second and third John Waldens both
made gravestones. Which made the signed Walden stones that are dated be-
tween 1790 and 1804? The third John, commonly known as "Captain John,"
bought a small quarry "near a place called the notch of the mountain" in Bol-
ton in 1792. This was bought from the Jonathan Loomis estate and sold to
Amasa Loomis, another stonecutter, in 1822. There is, therefore, good
evidence that the third John Walden was an active stonecutter in his own

Three Manning Imitators 235

right and not just an assistant to his father. Asa Walden, son of John the
third, died in 1794; he was buried in Scotland, and his grave is marked by a
marble stone with a typical Walden round-face design; so, as a preliminary
hypothesis, the "round-face" designs were probably made by John III. But
additional data and documentary records are needed before one can deter-
mine whether most of the signed Walden stones were made by the second or
the third John.

Thatcher Lathrop (1734-1806)
Loring Lathrop (1770-1847)
Luther Lathrop (1766-1851)

A family which imitated the Manning design at a somewhat greater
remove was the Lathrops of East Windsor and Wapping. This family is
responsible for a group of stones found predominantly among towns north
and northeast of Hartford; these stones have some characteristics of those
made by Ebenezer Drake,^ but they also have distinct Manning characteris-
tics. They have, for example, Drake's geometric border design; and the word
who is in italics as it is on many of Drake's stones. Their headdresses,
bloated eyes and downturned mouths are all Manning, however. A distin-
guishing feature of this mouth is its peculiar appearance as a mustache, so for
descriptive purposes these stones may be conveniently called the Wapping
"mustache" stones. Previously unidentified, enough information is now avail-
able to indicate that this group was made by the Lathrop family of Wapping.

An important clue in this identification is found in the probate papers for
Elisabeth Bliss (died East Windsor, 1781) which contain this entry:

To going to Wapin for grave stones 0-0-4
To Thatcher Lothrop for grave stones 1-11-6

The Bliss marker, which still stands in East Windsor, is similar to the stone
Lathrop made for Matthew Rockwell (Fig. 6), who died in East Windsor in
1782. Both have typical Drake borders, but the crown or headdress reflects
the influence of the Manning school, as does the downturned mouth.
Thatcher Lathrop (1734-1806) in fact was a contemporary of Ebenezer
Drake (1739-1806) and worked out of the same red sandstone quarry, but

236 Connecticut Gravestones

Drake was always much more popular. Both of the names appear in the
Abiel Grant estate (East Windsor, 1762), where Drake is mentioned as
having been paid for gravestones. In other probate papers for that time and
area Drake's name appears at least ten times more often than Lathrop's.

Like other Manning imitators, Thatcher Lathrop seems to have been eclec-
tic in his early work. The little headstone for Thatcher's daughter Lydia, who
died in Wapping in 1772, has a facial design and a border that faintly reflects
the work of the Ritter-Buckland school. It suggests that Lathrop began his
career by working for Ritter or one of the Bucklands before working with
Drake. The stone for Lathrop's wife Submit, who died in 1794 (Fig. 7), has
yet another facial design; indeed the design is unique in Connecticut. The
body and arms are not at all in proportion to the head and are obviously the
work of a man who was not familiar with correct anatomy. The remainder of
the stone, however, including the inscription, shows very good workmanship
and is in some ways similar to much of Ebenezer Drake's later work and that
of his son Silas ~ particularly the word who which is italicized, suggesting that
Lathrop had been working for Drake many years before this stone was made.
However, the bulk of Lathrop's work closely conforms to the mustache
design found on the Elisabeth Bliss marker, which places him within the Man-
ning school.

Lathrop's son Loring (1770-1842) appears to have followed his father's
trade. Loring was paid "4 Dolars" for the stone of Mark Tully Cicero Phelps,
who died in Windsor in 1797. These four dollars, however, may have been
merely the cost of transportation, for Mark Tully Cicero Phelps has such a
high stone that it may have cost that much just to carry it to the graveyard. It
shows the conventional willow-and-urn design which by that time had be-
come popular throughout the state, and has no other outstanding characteris-
tics.

Lathrop's other son, Luther, can be more definitively identified as a car-
ver. Luther was born 1766 and married Lucy Hartwell of Wilmington, Ver-
mont, where he died in 1851. In Wilmington and nearby Halifax are a large
number of slate stones with mustache faces made in the Drake-Lathrop man-
ner. Some of them have Drake's geometric borders and all of them have the
word who in italics. Both the face and the peculiar Manning crown are the

Three Manning Imitators

237

same as those found in the Windsor- Wapping region. It seems safe, there-
fore, to attribute these stones to some member of the Lathrop family, most
probably Luther. In Colrain, Massachusetts, a town founded by Scotch-Irish
Presbyterians some eighteen miles south of Wilmington, thirty-two such
stones stand in the Chandler Hill cemetery (Fig. 8). Most of these are dated
in the 1790s, the last dated 1801. If Luther is responsible for this group (as
he most likely is), he was probably in his early twenties when he removed to
Vermont and not much older than twenty-five.

Fig. 6 Deac" Matthew Rockwell 1782.
Edwards Burying Ground, South Windsor. Photograph by Peter Benes.

238

Connecticut Gravestones

lif- • '!nrop._

l-l- -J hacherjLotnrap.-

'SW

;^.!rirS^lKir#f»^S?^^>^..^

Fig. 7 Submit Lothrop 1794. Wapping Burying Ground, South Windsor.
Photograph by Peter Benes.

Three Manning Imitators

239

I Armory

Fig. 8 Deacon Thomas McGee. Colrain, Mass. Photograph by Peter Benes.

Fig. 9 Josiah Hammond 1793. Woodstock Hill Burying Ground, Woodstock.

Photograph by Farbers.

240

Connecticut Gravestones

Signed Stones by John Walden

ELIHU ADAMS, South Canterbury 1804 "J + W"
SUSANNA BINGHAM, Versailles 1795 "Cut by John Walden"
CAPT. JOSEPH BOARDMAN, Rixtown (Griswold) 1796 "Cut by John Walden,
Windham"

ANN DORRANCE, Oneco Cemetery, Sterling 1792

JOSIAH HAMMOND, Woodstock 1793 "Cut by J Walden, Windham" (Fig. 9)
ANNAH HYDE, South Canterbury 1801 "Cut by J Walden"
NICHOLAS JUSTIN, South Canterbury 1804 "Cut by J Walden"
URANIA LYONS, North Woodstock 1797 "Cut by John Walden Windham"
DISIRE WIFE OF JONATHAN MAPLES, Oak St., Norwich 1798 "Cut by J Wal-
den, Windham"

ESTHER PALMER, Scotland 1754 "Engraven by John Walden" (Fig. 4)
MARY PEARL, Hampton (North) 1790 "Cut by J Walden" (Fig. 5)
BETHL^H PECK, Burchard Plains, Franklin 1802 "Cut by John Walden Windham"
LYDL\ SAFFORD, Westminster 1793 [marble]
LYDL\ SAFFORD, Westminster 1804 [marble]

TRUMBULL CHILDREN, Norwichtown 1794 "Cut by John Walden Windham"
(Fig. 10)

'(("■.)

>J^Jif'>)J

■,f%^,0(^

Sac. red (othc JVJciDwi.y.oT' <v, o
Sons, of IVIr, lo])i-) 'liiinihi!])/

v\/I)() (l(:))ai l(.(l iliis l]i( .afli 1 a

\\...J. ...

Fig. 10 Trumbull children 1794. Norwichtown Burying Ground, Norwich.
Photograph by Farbers.

Three Manning Imitators 241

NOTES

1. Connecticut Gravestones VIII. (Caulfield footnote)

2. Connecticut Gravestones XII. (Caulfield footnote)

3. Besides the several Manning imitators discussed in this article, the following carvers at one
time borrowed elements of Manning family gravestone designs, and can be considered part
of the larger Manning school: Richard, Lebbeus, and Chester Kimball; Peter Buckland;
Amasa Loomis; and Ebenezer, Nathaniel, and Silas Drake. {Connecticut Gravestones III,
XIII, and XIV.) (Caulfield footnote)

4. There is now probate evidence that Aaron Haskins of Bolton carved most of the stones
here attributed to Joseph Tucker. Slater, T/ie Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connec-
ticut (Hamden, Conn., 1987), 24.

5. The John and Mary Skinner stones are difficult to reconcile as being made by the same car-
ver. As Dr. Caulfield notes, the lettering on the John Skinner stone (especially the back-
ward N's) suggests that the carver was Peter Buckland. However, the face and "snake-like"
horizontal undulating design that is continued through the border panels, as well as the
small loops immediately below the face, are similar to designs used on early Manning
stones. The Mary Skinner stone is a typical example of the early style of Josiah Manning in
every particular. It is impossible to believe that it was not carved by Manning. Since Mary
Skinner died two years before her husband, John, the most reasonable conclusion seems to
me to be that Josiah Manning carved the Mary Skinner stone for Joseph Tucker, who hired
Peter Buckland two years later to carve the John Skinner stone with instructions to make it
as similar to the Mary Skinner stone as possible. As Dr. Caulfield notes, the stone for
another Mary Skinner (Fig. 2), wife of John Skinner Jr., is almost certainly the work of
Peter Buckland and is dated 1772, further evidence that Tucker was using Peter Buckland
at that time. (However, just to keep things from being too evident, this latter Mary Skinner
stone does not have the backward N used so often (but not always) by Peter Buckland).

6. The Isaac Sheldon 1786 stone is beyond doubt a Manning stone. It was probably carved by
Rockwell Manning, as it closely resembles signed and probated stones of Rockwell. This is
further evidence that Joseph Tucker was buying stones from several sources rather than
carving them. Despite the fact that this Sheldon stone is a true Manning stone, it must be
emphasized that the majority of stones west of Mansfield that closely resemble Manning
stones (including Joseph Tucker's own stone) were not carved by the Mannings but by at
least one other hand. As noted above, there is probate evidence that Aaron Haskins
carved stones of this type. He may have carved all of them, but there are tantalizing dif-
ferences in the designs that suggest the possibility that other hands were at work. Detailed
imalysis of these "Manning-copies" is greatly to be desired.

7. A list of fifteen signed stones appears at the end of this article. There is another dated
1811 for Reuben Peck in the Hanover Burying Ground in Sprague.

8. Connecticut Gravestones III.

242

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 1 Joseph Lx)oinis 1766. Holy Grove Burying Ground, Coventry.

Fig. 2 Nathaniel Ladd 1779. Holy Grove Burying Ground, Coventry.

The Loomis Carvers 243

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XVI
The Loomis Carvers*

In Coventry, Connecticut, and surrounding towns there are 128
eighteenth-century granite-schist gravestones that are in a class by them-
selves. They are for the most part large, heavy stones whose cherub faces of-
ten have a rather clown-like, sleepy quality with their heavy eyebrows, half-
closed eyes, and (frequently) small smiling mouths (Figs. 1 and 2).

In a real sense these may be thought of as "hybrid" stones. They combine
the designs of several earlier carvers to produce a stone with a visual effect
unlike any other.

Who Carved the Stones?

Evidence for the identity of the carvers of these "hybrid" gravestones is
Hmited but, we believe, conclusive. No signed stones have yet been dis-
covered (a number of them have sunk into the ground so that even the age at
death cannot be seen). There is a single probate record where an individual
is definitely named as being paid for gravestones. Joseph Miner of Coventry
died in 1774 and is buried in the small Silver Street, Coventry, Cemetery.
His estate paid "Jona Loomis for gravestones 3-4-4."^ In addition, Thomas
Kingsbury, who died in 1754, had a headstone carved by one "Jonathan
Loomis," who was paid "0-1-6" for his work. The Samuel Parker (1779) estate
also paid £1-10-0 to Jonathan Loomis, but gravestones are not specifically
indicated. The James Parker estate paid an unidentified carver "2-5-0" for
"gravestones for ye deceas" in 1781, while the Jabez Carey estate paid an
unidentified carver £3 for a set of headstones in 1761.

All of the above individuals lie below gravestones obviously cut by the
same hand as that which carved the Joseph Miner stone. This is indicative,
but not absolutely conclusive, evidence that Jonathan Loomis (1722-1785)
was a gravestone carver. The indirect evidence involving quarry ownership
fortunately is more compelling.

* This article was published after Dr. Caulfield's death under the names of both Slater and
Caulfield. It was written by Slater, using unpublished notes of, and documentation of carvers
by, Caulfield. All of the photographs are by the Farbers.

244 Connecticut Gravestones

In 1750 Jonathan Loomis bought an acre of quarry land in Bolton "at a
place commonly called the notch of the mountain ... on the west side of the
highway from the notch to the meeting house." This land was purchased
from Edmund Bartlett, the brother of Gershom Bartlett, the famous "hook-
and-eye man," who subsequently bought land on the same road.^

As the earliest stone of the "Loomis-type" is dated 1749, it is reasonable to
assume that Jonathan Loomis entered the gravestone business at the time he
purchased the Bolton quarry. He retained this quarry until his death in 1785,
when he willed it to his son John Loomis (1745-1791).

Relatively little is known of Jonathan Loomis. He was born in Lebanon,
Connecticut, September 9, 1722, the son of John and Martha Loomis, and
was admitted to the church there on July 26, 1741. In 1744 he purchased
land in Coventry from William Sheldon, where three children were born to
him and his wife Margaret (John, b. July 12, 1745; Lydia, b. May 8, 1749;
Rhoda, b. October 3, 1752).^ He was engaged in numerous land transactions
in the area, but no other information is available relative to his gravestone
activities.

Jonathan's only son, John, was also certainly a carver. In this instance
there are no signed stones nor are there probate records of payment for his
services. However, gravestones of the "Loomis-type" continued to be carved
after Jonathan's death in 1785 and until John's own death in 1791, when the
style abruptly disappeared from Coventry area burying grounds.

As noted above, John inherited the Bolton quarry from his father in 1785.
When John died six years later, his estate contained six pairs of gravestones,
a stone pit, two compasses, six chisels, a large and small stone hammer, a
broad chisel, and three augers. At least some of these tools he left to his son,
Amasa Loomis, who also became an established carver (signed stones).'' In-
terestingly, John Loomis's widow Irene sold to "John Walden, Jur, of
Windham," a well-known gravestone carver, all the stone and "all the
privilege of diging and carying of the above said stone on a certain lot of land
that M. Jonathan Loomis late of Coventry deceasd purchased of Edmund
Bartlett of Bolton in the county of Tolland containing one acre of land near a
place called the notch of the mountain lying on the west side of the road that
leads to Bolton meeting house "^

The Loomis Carvers 245

Further evidence that John Loomis was a stonecarver will be presented
below on stylistic grounds. He served in the Revolutionary War and was
called "lieut." Both Jonathan and John are buried in the Coventry South
Street (Holy Grove) Cemetery, Amasa was about eighteen years old when
John died, and although there are signed and probated stones carved by
Amasa Loomis dated in the early 1790s, the stones for both Jonathan and
John appear to be the work of Thatcher Lathrop of South Windsor, Connec-
ticut!

Influence of Other Carvers on Jonathan Loomis

Loomis headstones are striking examples of motif borrowing from earlier
and contemporary carvers. They are often translated into a simpler or more
stylized form, in part at least due to the lesser skill possessed by Jonathan
and his son.

To most gravestone students first acquaintance with the Loomis stones
gives the impression of relatively crude attempts to copy the work of Obadiah
Wheeler of Lebanon, Connecticut.^ This is because one's attention is drawn
(as it is intended to be) to the face of the cherub. Here the influence of ear-
lier carvers is particularly striking. The face is often bordered by a frame
(Figs. 1 and 2), a design feature introduced into eastern Connecticut by John
Hartshorne and continued by Wheeler, Benjamin and Julius Collins, and on
the early stones of Josiah Manning.^ The facial elements are distinctly those
of Wheeler's later stones, especially the elongated slender aristocratic nose,
the "closed eyes," and the small, simple, slightly smiling or "neutral" mouth
(Fig. 2). The horizontal area below the face frequently possesses a central
heart with flanking "stemmed" rosettes (Fig. 1), designs first used by Obadiah
Wheeler and also frequently used by Benjamin and Julius Collins.

The use of Wheeler designs might be expected since Jonathan Loomis
lived for a time in Lebanon, where the majority of Wheeler stones were
being produced. Yet the faces and horizontal areas of the earliest Loomis
stones are not of the Wheeler type. On some (Figs. 3 and 4), the face is not
even framed. This suggests that the Wheeler influence may not be a direct
one. This view is strengthened when one realizes that in the two major
Coventry cemeteries there is a series of stones probably carved by Benjamin

246

Connecticut Gravestones

Collins's less well-known carving son, Julius.^ These stones closely resemble
Loomis's stones in the appearance of the cherub face, top outline and
horizontal heart, and rosette development. After viewing these stones there
seems little doubt that Jonathan Loomis "copied" these Julius Collins stones
rather than taking the elegantly crafted Wheeler stones as his immediate
model.

The earliest influence on Jonathan Loomis was unquestionably the "hook-
and-eye man," Gershom Bartlett. Almost all of the early Loomis headstones
have the "double anchor" (Figs. 4, 5 and 6) border panels, which are a
trademark of Bartlett, and the "wings" of most Loomis stones throughout his
career have the peculiar series of elongate "curls" (Figs. 1-4, 7 and 11) beside
the face used almost exclusively by Gershom Bartlett. Loomis even followed
Bartlett as the latter modified these curls. On early Bartlett stones each curl
has a deep groove running through its length. Later Bartlett examples aban-
doned the groove and used a series of incised dots on the surface of the curl.

Fig. 3 Hannah Hunt 1758. Holy Grove Burying Ground, Coventry.

The Loomis Carvers

247

- ..; J: J.t<j:i-^ Lies . 'hi k-.r * ^ !' '.

Fig. 4 Samuel Bingham 1760. Scotland.

Loomis stones (Figs. 1 and 2) follow exactly the same pattern. The curls
of his early works have vertical grooves; those of his later stones have a series
of incised dots. The "crown" that Bartlett placed above his cherubs is also
found on early Loomis stones (Figs. 1, 3 and 4). Finally, on several of the
early Loomis headstones the nose is swollen and the eyes beadlike (Fig. 3), a
most obvious attempt to follow the Bartlett style.

One of the remarkable aspects of the work of the Loomises is their resis-
tance to the Manning influence. Manning stones became so popular and
dominant in the last half of the eighteenth century that their style was
adopted to some extent by most carvers in eastern Connecticut. The Man-
ning influence, however, is completely, or almost completely, absent from
Loomis stones. The only possible influence is the occurrence of the undulate
type of border panels and horizontal areas (Figs. 5 [17]* and 14[17]), a style
that Jonathan Loomis first used in the 1770s. However, this is not an early

* The figures in brackets refer to the code in the charts and graphs in this article showing
design motifs. These charts and graphs and the map (Fig. 19) were prepared by Mary Jane
Spring of the University of Connecticut.

248

Connecticut Gravestones

Manning feature and could well have been a characteristic adopted by the
Mannings from Loomis. This is particularly noteworthy, as John's son Amasa
adopted the Manning style almost without modification.

Evolution of Style

Cherubim faces: On a few early stones, such as those for Harmah Hunt
(1758) (Fig. 3), Esther Hunt (1757), and Jude Steadman (1757), the nose of
the cherub is grotesquely broadened, and the eyes are represented as small
rounded "beads," These features are obvious attempts to imitate Gershom
Bartlett's stones. The style was quickly discarded in favor of the heavy-
browed, aquiline nose and half-closed eye design which appeared as early as
1754 on the Thomas Kingsbury stone and then scarcely changed at all
throughout the careers of both Jonathan and John.

l5o

18a 18b

) c

Fig. 5 Loomis designs used in the vertical border panels.
For chronology and abundance see Figure 6.

The Loomis Carvers 249

"Wings": On either side of the face, where wings were carved on most
eighteenth-century stones, the Loomis carvers used the Bartlett type series of
elongate curls (or "wings") (Fig. 7 [10-1 lb]) on the great majority of their
gravestones. It is also the area where the style modification on Loomis
headstones is sharpest and where one may see most clearly the evidence of
backdating. The earliest death date on a Loomis gravestone is 1749 (most
colonial stones were presumably cut not later than two or three years after
the death of the individual). Until 1771 almost all headstones using the curl
motif are of the "grooved curl" type. The three stones dated before 1770 that
use the dotted curl design appear to be back-dated. The Mary Page (1750)
Coventry gravestone has a double-anchor border panel and a form of the let-
ter Y, suggesting that it probably was carved in the mid- 1770s. The Esther
Barrows (1761) Mansfield Center stone has the late "saw-toothed" border
panel motif which does not occur on any other stone dated before the 1770s.
It is the companion stone to that of her husband, Thomas, who died in 1776,
and stylistically both stones appear to have been carved at that time. The
Hannah Lathrop (1767) Tolland stone appears to be the earliest to use the
"dotted curl" style. While it could have been carved at that time, it probably
was not carved earlier than 1770 or 1771, when this motif became dominant
and the use of grooved curls disappeared.

Before 1770 only four additional stones are known that do not use the
grooved curl design. Of these, the Stephen Stiles (1758) Coventry stone (Fig.
13) is back-dated at least from the mid-1770s if not later; all design elements,
including the letters Y and G, are from the later period. The other three
pre-1770 stones use upswept wings (Fig. 7 [9]), a design of limited use by
Loomis. These stones represent attempts to produce wings that sweep up-
ward in the style of later Wheeler and particularly many Benjamin and Julius
Collins stones. The Olive Hovey (1765) stone at Storrs is particularly well
executed. Why Loomis abandoned this design is unknown; perhaps it
presented too challenging a technique.

In 1775 and 1776 a few stones were placed in the Colchester area that
have the wings represented by a series of down-curved stripes. These stones
are reminiscent of those carved by the Mannings for children.

From the mid-1770s into the 1780s an occasional stone was produced with

250

Connecticut Gravestones

a balloon-like wing (Fig. 7 [12, 12a]), and a banded wing (Fig. 7 [13]) design.
None of these styles ever really superseded the dominant "curl" style, and the
essential evolutionary importance of the "wing" area lies in the supplanting of
the "grooved curl" (Figs. 7 [10] and 8 [10]) by the "spotted curl" (Figs. 7 [11-
lla] and 8 [11]).

1790

* 1

•

1780

{

•

(

L
r

pM
t

L 1

(

)4G
547 1

» i

1770

©•'

1 1 1 1 1 1

(

1760

►

(

(
(
•

i (

1
<

(

•
>

1750

^ 1

14 18

23 44 45

Fig. 6 Chronology and abundance of designs used in the border panels.
See Fig. 5 for illustrations corresponding to numbers at bottom of chart.

The Loomis Carvers 251

Border Panels: (Figs. 5 and 6). While it may seem that the Loomises used a
bewildering array of border panel motifs, their stones are quite limited in
style. There are only three early designs. The most common is the "double
anchor" (Fig. 5 [15a]) which, as mentioned previously, is a direct copy from
the stones of Gershom Bartlett. Variations of this motif are used where a
connecting stripe is added (Fig. 5 [15]) and the top of the design terminates
in an arrow (Fig. 5 [15b, 18b]). This design is dominant from the late 1750s
through the 1760s and persists until 1779, when it is no longer used (Fig. 6
[15]). The disappearance of this design element may well indicate the end of
any appreciable amount of carving by Jonathan Loomis.

In the 1750s seven stones have a simple frame border (Fig. 5 [19]), but this
is used subsequently only once. Jonathan Loomis also carved a series of
fancy border panels consisting of clusters of grapes (Fig, 5 [18]). This design
was used on the Lot Luce (1749) Scotland stone which bears the earliest date
of any Loomis stone. These must have been special efforts, as he almost
never carved more than one a year (Fig. 6 [18]). The design is not used after
1778.

As with the "wings" (curls), a marked stylistic change occurs in the border
panels in the early 1770s (Fig. 6). While the "double anchor" design con-
tinues to be used (Fig. 6 [15]), it is gradually replaced by the "saw-toothed"
(Fig. 5 [16]) and "undulate" designs (Fig. 5 [17]). After 1779 these are the
only border panel designs used (Fig. 6 [16, 17]). Rarely, there is a peculiar
geometric motif used, as on the Sarah Taylor (1774) (Fig. 5 [23]) and Lydia
Isham (1775) stones. The Jonah Isham (1775) gravestone used hour glasses.
In the late 1770s stones occur with a series of circles in the border panels
(Figs. 5 [14] and 6 [14]).

Horizontal Row Designs: (Figs. 14 and 15). As with the preceding design
elements, there is a marked stylistic change in the 1770s. This alteration is
less striking since two major motifs are retained throughout the 1770s. In the
early 1760s Loomis produced a series of stones on which the "double anchor"
design of the border panels is carried across the width of the stone below the
face and wings and above the legend (Figs. 14[ 15, 15c-d] and 4). However,
the two most prevalent designs are either a simple line that forms a frame

252

Connecticut Gravestones

(Fig. 2) or a central heart with "stemmed" circles containing four- or six-rayed
rosettes (Figs. 14 [27-27z] and 1). This latter design is taken directly from the
stones of Obadiah Wheeler and Julius Collins. The disappearance of this
design before 1780 (Fig. 15 [27]), like that of the "double anchors" in the bor-
der panels, again suggests the end of Jonathan Loomis's carving.

Beginning in the 1770s (Fig. 15 [16 and 17]), a number of stones carry the
saw-toothed and the undulate border panel motifs across the stone, but these
never become the exclusive patterns. By 1780 a completely different motif
appears in which the central heart is usually retained, although the old six-
rayed rosettes have lost their circular frames, and stems have been trans-
formed into "snowflake" patterns (Fig. 14 [29 and 30-3 lb]). Evidence sug-
gests these stones were all carved by John Loomis and occur in a number of
variations, the snowflakes sometimes even creeping into the area of the
"wings" and crown. A few other designs occur (Fig. 14 [14, 28 and 28a]) but
are found on only a very few stones (Fig. 15).

Fig. 7 Loomis designs used in the lunette on either side of face.
For chronology and abundance see Fig. 8.

The Loomis Carvers

253

12 9 13 43

Fig. 8 Chronology and abundance of designs used in the lunette

on either side of the face. See Fig. 7 for illustrations

corresponding to numbers at bottom of chart.

"Crown Area": (Figs. 16 and 17). Although the Loomises used many design
variations above the face of the cherub, the majority of these can be grouped
into three categories. The first is an early spiked crown style where the
"crown" consists of a number of pointed triangles (Figs. 16 [2, 2a, 3, 4 and 6],
1 and 3). These designs are used exclusively on stones carved in the 1750s
and on almost all those carved in the 1760s. The motif becomes scarce in the
1770s and does not occur after 1779 (Fig. 17).

By the 1770s, the spiked crown is a series of half circles (Fig. 16, [1, 5, 5a,
7-8a]), three (Figs. 16 [1], 2 and 13) being most common. This motif,
however, appears as early as 1762 on the Damaris Ashbo stone - which prob-
ably is not back-dated! The half-circle design is used almost to the end of
Loomis's career (Fig. 17). From 1780 on, however, it is largely supplanted by
a quite different design in which the "crown" is composed of a series of out-
curved lines resembling hooked hairs (Figs. 16 [40-40e] and 18) of varying
number and shape. This later design probably represents only the work of
John Loomis.

254

Connecticut Gravestones

Shape of the Stone: Unlike the versatile Mannings, who used nearly 100 dif-
ferent outlines on the tops of their stones, the Loomises were very conserva-
tive. Most early stones have a rounded lunette with "square" shoulders (Figs.
4 and 9 [32a]), but this outline disappears completely after 1762 (Fig. 10). By
the early 1770s the design settled into a rounded lunette with shoulders that
curved gently upward from the corners (Figs. 2, 9 [32], 10 and 13). This is the
only design used after 1771 (Fig. 10 [32]). During the 1760s a number of
elaborations occur (Figs. 9 [33-37, 39] and 1). Surprisingly, the central
rounded lunette with round shoulders (Fig. 9 [38]), so common on other
gravestones of the period, was rarely used (four stones only, three in one year
in the late 1760s) (Fig. 10 [38]).

Fig. 9 Shapes of stones used by the Loomis carvers.
For chronology and abundance see Fig. 10.

The Loomis Carvers

1790"

255

1760

•

;

(

•:

S8S8k

(

•

•:

r ^

(

• 1

a "I

•

t <

►

•1

•

►

•

(

-7

►

(

;

► 1

32a 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Fig. 10 Chronology and abundance of shape of Loomis stones.
See Fig. 9 for illustrations corresponding to numbers at bottom of chart.

Area Below Face: This is the most conservative design area. Almost all
stones have a series of curving stripes present from the ventral area of the
face to the horizontal element (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 11, 13 and 18). Rarely, a short
neck, a heart, or a pair of dots occur.

Footstones: Unfortunately all of the footstones have been removed from the
South Street (Holy Grove), Coventry, Cemetery. It was here that the
greatest number and variety of Loomis headstones appeared. The extant
footstones usually have a simple rounded lunette that meets the upper lateral
corner of the stone in a gentle arc, or have a rounded lunette with right-
angled corners. They are usually simple, and the design often consists of two
or three small circles reminiscent of the triangles on Gershom Bartlett's
footstones. On the Jonathan Weston (1790) stone a four-leafed clover (or
"propeller") is used, and the Abigail Walbridge (1783) stone has a rather
simplified snowflake design and saw-toothed border panels. The extant
footstones are recognizable as Loomis productions, but in the absence of
Coventry material no real stylistic evolution can be clearly seen.

256 Connecticut Gravestones

Distribution of Stones: By their limited distribution the Loomis stones il-
lustrate the local craftsman tradition that was present in inland eastern Con-
necticut throughout the eighteenth century. The widespread distribution of
the stones of such popular carvers as the Manning family, Bartlett, and
several Connecticut Valley carvers such as the Johnsons, Drake, and the
Lathrops tends to obscure the importance of more local carvers. This is true
of the towns of Killingly, Plainfield, Sterling, Putnam, Thompson, Scotland,
Hampton, and Ashford. It is one of the most interesting aspects of
eighteenth-century burying grounds, yet has been little studied. Even the
names of many of these carvers remain unknown.

The Loomis carvers dominated the Coventry cemeteries during the last
half of the eighteenth century.* Sixty-two percent of their stones are found in
Coventry, and 75% occur in Coventry and towns immediately adjacent.
Stones further away are usually isolated groups of from one to four, carved
for one or two related families. In the Coventry South Street Cemetery
(Holy Grove), where both Jonathan and John are buried, their work con-
stitutes 34% of the stones produced after 1750 (with Jonathan's grandson
Amasa Loomis's stones included, the Loomis headstones constitute 75% of
the total). This does not necessarily suggest other carvers were not available,
as the Manning family and their various "imitators" were actively carving all
around Coventry during the same period.

John or Jonathan Loomis?

Without signed stones or probate evidence, recognition of a given grave-
stone as being carved by John rather than by his father, Jonathan, must, of
course, be by indirect evidence. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that they
worked together on some stones. That John did carve some of them seems
beyond reasonable doubt. As noted above, his estate included many stone-
cutting tools and a number of gravestones, and he continued to own the
quarry inherited from his father.

* A chronological list of Loomis stones and a list showing their distribution will be found at
the end of this article. See also Fig. 19.

The Loomis Carvers

257

Of more importance, a number of Loomis-type stones were carved for five
years after Jonathan's death in 1785. None, however, was carved after John's
death in 1791 (Figs. 6, 8, 15 and 17). If one examines these 1785-1790 stones
(post- Jonathan), several features are evident. The border panels and horizon-
tals are essentially the same and are of either the undulate (Fig. 11) or saw-
toothed design. There is frequent use of hooked hair in the "crown" area
(Fig. 18), and on the 1790 stone the snowflake design occurs above the face
and in the circle of the lower curl. On the one for Submit Murdock (1785)
both the saw-toothed border and snowflake horizontal motifs are used. The
word "the" begins to replace the archaic "ye," as in the statement, "In ye 27th
year of her age." We can thus identify the saw-tooth (Fig. 5 [16]), undulate
(Fig. 5 [17]), snowflake (Fig. 14 [29, 30, 31]), and hooked hair (Fig. 16 [40-
40d]) motifs as designs used by John.

Fig. 11 Asa Hendee 1788. Holy Grove Burying Ground, Coventry.

258

Connecticut Gravestones

In examining the above design elements chronologically it becomes ap-
parent that all are late Loomis designs (Figs. 6, 15 and 17). The saw-tooth
and undulate designs first appear in 1770 (Fig. 6), when John Loomis was
twenty-five years old. The snowflake and hooked hair designs are very late,
both appearing first on the Ichabod Freeman and Humphrey Taylor stones of
1782 (Figs. 15 and 17). We believe it safe to attribute any stones using these
latter two motifs to John. If this is true, can the saw-toothed and undulate
border motifs also be attributed solely to John? Both of these designs first
appear in the early 1770s although neither predominate until late in the
decade (Fig. 6).

20a

20b

o o

just above a
horizontal design

Fig. 12 Lx)oinis designs used in area immediately below face.

The Loomis Carvers 259

' ^^^^BjH||m^^^»

^^^^^^l^^l

^^m

"\ *%, ^^Sh

m '

_^ \*'

^\" ^

■1

Fig. 13 Stephen Stiles 1758. Holy Grove Burying Ground, Coventry.

In the early 1770s the shape of the letter y changed from a pair of intersect-
ing straight lines (Fig. 3) to a curving "tail" below the legend line (Fig. 2), sug-
gesting that another hand was at work. Thus there is a striking consistency in
the changes adopted for the crown area, border panels, horizontals, lettering,
and appearance of snowflake designs in the late 1770s and early 1780s. Be-
cause these designs continue to make their appearance after Jonathan's
death in 1785, it is very likely they are the work of his son.

What, then, is the position of the Loomis stones in the context of
eighteenth-century gravestone work in Eastern Connecticut? Technically,
the Loomises were only moderately skilled craftsmen. While their stones are
often attractive and pleasing, this is more the result of their "folk" aspects
than the skill of their carving. Almost all Loomis designs were borrowed
from earlier craftsmen, especially Gershom Bartlett, Obadiah Wheeler, and
Benjamin and Julius Collins. In addition, there is no evidence that they were
especially sensitive to the significance of the designs they used beyond what
must have been common knowledge in the society. Furthermore, there is a
definite evolution of style from the early stones of the 1750s to the last stones

260

Connecticut Gravestones

in 1790. This evolution of stylistic elements enables us to make a case for
recognition of backdated stones and to suggest a means of distinguishing the
work of John Loomis from that of his father, Jonathan.

The persistence of the Loomis-type stones in Coventry is a good example
of the strength of local craft tradition in the face of a dominating adjacent in-
fluence. Finally, the Loomises are important in carrying the Eastern Connec-
ticut ornamental style, originated by John Hartshorne about 1722, through
the eighteenth century to 1790. Rather than having it disappear in Connec-
ticut upon the removal of Zerubbabel Collins to Vermont in the 1770s, the
Loomises carried on a stylistic tradition to the end of the eighteenth century.

^J KJ KJ —
/^\ ^\ r\ r^

28 a

I5e

27w

\^^^\^ no ^U\^\,

21x

°->K^

^ ^JL» «JU ro «!J!L*
^ ^ *'4^ V ^^

ic^c?

NO DESIGN

27 z

Fig. 14 Loomis designs used in the area immediately above the legend.
For chronology and abundance see Fig. 15.

The Loomis Carvers

261

Fig. 15 Chronology and abundance of designs used in the

horizontal area above the legend. See Fig. 14 for illustrations

corresponding to numbers at bottom of chart.

t;^

Fig. 16 Loomis designs used in the area immediately above the face.
For chronology and abundance see Fig. 17.

262

Connecticut Gravestones

1790

M 414

►

1780

{

«
(

•

(

444
®

i :

••

;•

1 <

►

•

)
•

42<
43<
43(

t :

1770

m
i
1

(

• .

r •

{

1760

}
i

1 (

t ^

•

1 ^

•

1750

•

8 40 41

Fig. 17 Chronology and abundance of designs used in

area immediately above the face. See Fig. 16 for illustrations

corresponding to numbers at bottom of chart.

The Loomis Carvers

263

Fig. 18 Cap^ John Bissell 1783. Holy Grove Burying Ground, Coventry.

264

Connecticut Gravestones

Chronological List of Loomis Stones

(For explanation of numbers see charts on pp. 248-262.)

Death
Date

Name and Location

Shape
Top

Abo^
Face

le Besid
Face

e
Border

Hori-
zontal

Below
Face

Age

1749

Luce, Lot SCT

32a

1750

Page, Mary CS

27x

1752

Graves, Benjamin COL

1754

Kingburry, Thomas CS

27x

1755

Kingberry, Anne CS

27x

1755

Lamb, Ebenezer CS

32a

1756

Hunt, Hannah CS

32a

15a

1757

Steadman, Jude A.

32a

1757

Steadman, Sarah

Leach A.

32a

20a

1757

Hunt, Esther CS

32a

1758

Chauncey, Abiel MG

18b

1758

Hunt, Hannah CS

32a

1758

Stiles, Stephen CS

1758

Rust, Mary CS

32a

1759

Brown, Mary C

32a

1759

Tracy, Eunis SCT

32a

1759

Throop, Josiah CS

32a

1758-59 Porter, EHzabeth &

32a

60,63

Thomas CS

1760

Bingham, Samuel SCT

32a

15e

74?

1760

Coolly, Noah CS

1760

Cary, Jabez M

32a

15d

1760

Rudd, Nathaniel SCT

1761

Hunt, Rachel CS

32a

1761

Rust, Elisabeth CS

32a

1761

Gilbert, Nathaniel

Capt. CS

32a

15d

71?

1761

Barrows, Esther M

1762

Ashbo, Damaris CS

32a

15c

1762

Curtis, Bildad C

15b

1764

Kingberry, Mary CS

1764

Hovey, Olive ST

15b

1765

Kimball, Timothy Dr. CS 33

27x

1765

Talcott, Esther CS

1765

Robertson, Anne C

1766

Loomis, Joseph CS

15b

1766

Potwine, Mary CS

15b

27x

1766

Daughter of Joseph &

(No

cherub design; footstone-like)

Eunice Talcott CS

1767

Bingham, Anne CS

15b

1767

Lathrop, Hannah T

1767

Hale, Elisabeth C

15b

27x

1767

Willson, Francis CS

15b

The Loomis Carvers

265

1767

Merrough, Mary C

15b

27x

1767

Sweetland, Jonathan AT

' 32

8a(y)

1768

Dunbar, Susanna A

32a

(No cherub design; footstone-like)

1768

Ladd, Henry C

15b

27u

1768

Collins, Zerubbabel CS

15b

1768

Ladd, Abigail C

18a

27x

1768

Clark, Submit A

27x

1769

Kingberry, Jabez

Deacon A

15b

176-

Dodge, David COL

1770

Sweetland,

Hephzibah AT

8a(y)

1770

Brigham, Polly CS

1770

Werner, Sarah M

27x

1770

Jones, Patience CS

1770

Kimball, Hannah CS

15b

27x

1770

Bishop, Kezia HA

40e

1771

Jones, Sarah A

1771

Burnap, Hannah CS

27x

1771

Huntington, Hannah C

27x

29?

1771

Smith, Hanah CS

1771

Bingham, Belle C

15?

27x

1772

Graves, Mary CS

1772

Curtis, Henry C '

1773

Manley, Mary C

15d

1774

Lyman, Hannah A

27x

1774

Miner, Joseph CSI

1774

Ripley, Elijah C

1774

Hendre, Abner CS

1774

Taylor, Sarah ST

12b

27z

1774

Peirce, Samuel ST

12b

27y

1774

Foot, Hannah MB

1774

Baxter, Mindwell H

1775

Palmer, Stephen C

27v

1775

Ripley, Elijah Jr. C

1775

Mead, John C

1775

Lyman, Lydia L

1775

Isham, Lydia, WST

1775

Hawkins, Sarah C

1775

Parker, Samuel

Deacon C

1775

Mead, Hannah C

17a

1775

Isham, Jonah WST

1775

Rust, Mary C

17a

1775

Loomis, Solomon WST

1775

Miner, Grace CSI

27w

1775

Mead, Anna C

17a

1775

Strong, Martha HA

1776

Post, Israel Deacon H

1776

Dutton, Timothy
Bartholomew WST

1776

Leach, Ebenezar Capt. A 32

266

Connecticut Gravestones

1776

Bishop, Abiel HA

17a

1776

Bulckley, Anna COL

17a

1776

Hatch, Jemima WST

17a

1776

Buckley, Gordon COL

4 var.

18 var.

1776

Button, Amaziah WST

2a?

1776

Barrows, Thomas M.

1776

Hawkins, James C

27var.

1776

Fowler, Esther CS

13a

1776

Palmer, Elisabeth C

1777

Robertson, Sarah

Anna C

1777

Hawkins, Sarah C

12a

17?

1777

Hawkins, Joseph C

1777

Davenport, Clarisa CS

1777

Manley, Chloe C

1777?

Infant of Thomas &
Anna Brown CSI

Erodec

1778

Moulton, Hannah ST

1778

Maxwell, Samuel L

16a

1779

Ladd, Nathaniel CS

11a

1779

Badger, Mehetibel A

28a

1779

Brown, Anna CSI

1779

Curtis, Henry C

1781

Parker, James C

1782

Maxwell, Esther L

1782

Freeman, Ichabod CB

40d

31b

1782

Taylor, Humphrey C

40b

1782

Shapley, Adam Capt. NL 32

16a

1783

Walbridge, Abigail T

13a

31a vai

. 22

1783

Bissell, John Capt. COL

40c

31a

1783

Strong, Lucy C

29 var.

20b

1783

Hutchinson, Jemime AT 32

1784

Curtis, Abigail C

1784

Carpenter, Dan CB

40b

12b

31a

1784

Robertson, Hannah C

40a

1785

Murdock, Submit W

1785

Burnap, Abraham CS

1786

Bishop, Caleb HA

1788

Hendee, Asa CS

1788

Strong, Phinaeus CS

1790

Weston, Jonathan T

1790

Tilden, John C

lib

1790

Dow, Anne C

Locality Abbreviations

COL

Andover

Andover (Townsend Hill)

Coventry (Nathan Hale Cemetery)

Columbia

Colchester

The Loomis Carvers 267

CS Coventry (Holy Grove or South Street Cemetery)

CSI Coventry (Silver Street Cemetery)

HA Hanover

H Hebron (Andover Road Cemetery)

L Lebanon (Trumbull Cemetery)

M Mansfield Center Cemetery

MB Marlborough

MG Mansfield (Gurley or Pink Ravine Cemetery)

ML New London

SCT Scotland

ST Mansfield (Storrs Cemetery)

T Tolland

W Windham

WST Westchester

Distribution of the Loomis Stones (Fig. 19)

Number

Coventry

South Street

Nathan Hale

Silver Street

Andover

Westchester

Colchester

Scotland

Storrs (Mansfield)

Hanover

Mansfield Center (Mansfield)

Tolland

Lebanon

Andover (Townsend Hill)

Hebron

Columbia

Pink Ravine (Mansfield)

Marlborough

Windham

New London

131

Design Coding Footnote

Design numbers run consecutively. Wliere the same design is used in the border panels and in
the horizontal row above the legend, it is coded with the same number.

268

Connecticut Gravestones

SCOTLAND

HANOVER

\WESTCHESTER___^

DISTRIBUTION OF
JONATHAN LOOMIS
STONES RADIATING
FROM COVENTRY \
NATHAN HALE CEMETERY\

NEW
LONDON

Fig. 19 Distribution of Jonathan Loomis stones.

The Loomis Carvers 269

NOTES

1. Windham County Probate Records, file 2741, The Connecticut State Library, Hartford.

2. Connecticut Gravestones XVIII.

3. Coventry Town Records, 77.

4. Amasa Loomis carved in the Manning and Walden traditions.

5. The quarry was later purchased from Walden by Amasa Loomis in 1822 and was sold again
in 1829 to William Hunt for one dollar.

6. Connecticut Gravestones XVII.

7. James A. Slater and Ralph L. Tucker, "The Colonial Gravestone Carvings of John
Hartshorne," Puritan Gravestone Art II, The Dublin Seminar for New England Folklore:
Annual Proceedings 1978 (Boston, 1978), 78-146.

8. Connecticut Gravestones IX.

270

Connecticut Gravestones

MaSSACHUSETTS

CONNECTICUT

Fig. 1 Geographical distribution of Wheeler gravestones.

Obadiah Wheeler 271

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XVII
The Colonial Gravestone Carvings of Obadiah Wheeler*

In recent years there has been a considerable increase in scholarly interest
in the colonial gravestones of New England. In the past these gravestones
have generally been viewed either as curiosities, as material for "rubbings," or
as genealogical source material. It is now realized that these stones provide
rich source material for studies of religious symbolism, cultural interrelation-
ships, artistic styles, mortality data, family composition, and other aspects of
early New England culture.^

Before maximum use can be made of this research source it is necessary to
identify the individual craftsmen involved in the creation of these stones, to
determine the influences that have acted upon them, and to note the evolu-
tion and distribution of their work in time and space. In this paper we
present a study of one of the early colonial craftsmen of eastern Connecticut.
We shall indicate who this man was, where he lived, what he produced, and
will describe the evolution and diversity of his creative effort.

The colonial cemeteries of eastern Connecticut contain nearly 200 distinc-
tive gravestones of high artistic quality, the identity of whose carver has
heretofore been unknown. These stones are characterized by depicting faces
that have elongate, slender, aristocratic noses connected with the brows
above the eyes, and by a characteristic type of "wing" or "curl" motif adjacent
to the face.

Allan I. Ludwig placed these stones in what he called "Phase II of the East-
ern Connecticut Ornamental Style" and discussed them as having been ex-
ecuted by an unknown carver whom he referred to as the "Collins Master."
Ludwig was apparently unsure whether or not these stones were the early
work of Benjamin Collins of Columbia or the work of another artist who in-
fluenced the work of Collins.^ Ernest Caulfield had, however, previously
demonstrated that the work of Benjamin Collins is clearly distinguishable
from that of the craftsman under consideration,-' and the present analysis

272 Connecticut Gravestones

supports this conclusion. The authors do not agree with Ludwig's statement
that after 1730 it is difficult to distinguish the work of the "Collins Master"
from that of Benjamin Collins. The work of these two stonecarvers is quite
distinct in execution and even in the nature of the stone used during both
men's careers, although some borrowing of motifs is evident, possibly in both
directions.

Identity of the Carver

Although many colonial stonecarvers placed their names on some of their
gravestones, the artist in question did not. Therefore, to determine the iden-
tity of the "Collins Master" it is necessary to turn to other forms of evidence.
The most reliable method available is the examination of early probate
records to attempt to find evidence of payment to an individual for the
production of a given gravestone. Establishment of the identity of the carver
for as many stones as possible is imperative, as such stones provide base
points for determining if a single craftsman produced rather different stones
at different periods of his life or whether varied motifs were the work of dif-
ferent individuals. In the present case, although we recognize five major
motifs or "types," we have probate evidence for the stone "types" which are
the most disparate both chronologically and stylistically. Even in the absence
of such probate records careful analysis of the relationships of the stones
alone would lead to the conclusion that all of the stones discussed below
were produced by a single individual. Nevertheless, the probate evidence
seems conclusive.

First, among the probate papers of Jonathan Hutchinson, who died in
Lebanon, Connecticut, in 1717, is an undated receipt which reads, "Yhis may
sartisfy whome it may consarn that I obadiah wheeler made one pair of grave
stones for Mrs mindwell tisdale for har first husband mr Jonathan huch I sun
pris 2-5-0 and one pair for har litele daughter mindwell hutchisun price 0-14-
0."'* Second, in 1742 six adult members of the Sluman (Sleuman) family of
Norwich West Farms (now Franklin, Connecticut) died during an epidemic
of "Extraordinary sickeness." Among the deceased were Mr. and Mrs.
Thomas Sluman, the younger Thomas, Joshua and David Sluman. Joseph
Sluman of Lebanon, adminstrator of the estates of the elder Thomas

Obadiah Wheeler

273

Slumans, hired Obadiah Wheeler to make their gravestones. Wheeler was
also paid three pounds for a pair of gravestones for Joshua Sluman.^

The Mindwell Hutchinson (Fig. 3) and Jonathan Hutchinson stones still
stand in Lebanon, and the stones for Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Sluman are in
Franklin. The Hutchinson stones represent what we classify as Type I and
the Sluman stones represent Type V. Thus if Obadiah Wheeler carved the
Type I and Type V stones, he certainly also was the craftsman who produced
the Type II, III, and IV stones, as will be seen.

Obadiah Wheeler was for many years a resident of Lebanon, Connecticut,
as is shown not only by documentary evidence but also by the distribution of
the gravestones themselves. Where a given carver's stones are the most
numerous and most varied in form is almost invariably where he lived. Table
I at the end of this article shows the marked concentration and diversity of
Wheeler stones in the Trumbull cemetery in Lebanon (see Fig. 1).

»««

•

••

1742

••••••••

™

•tmw

•

•sfis.
T

••

•••
••

rm-

■i(a

TrPiiS

Fig. 2 Distribution of Wheeler gravestones by year and type.
(White symbols indicate back-dated stones.)

274 Connecticut Gravestones

Wheeler was born in Concord, Massachusetts, in 1673 and, together with
his wife and children, disappeared from the records there in 1717.^ He first
appeared in the Lebanon records on November 25, 1718, when, describing
himself as a "husbandman," he signed an indenture (lease) for fourteen years
for 401 acres of land, two male white servants, two oxen and some breeding
mares7

Unfortunately, we have no information on the last years and death of
Obadiah Wheeler. We have not been able to locate any probate papers for
him, and there is no gravestone marking his grave in the area, nor is there
one for his wife, the former Hannah Fletcher, whom he married in Concord
in 1702.^

Early Influences

The gravestone craftsman who most significantly influenced Wheeler's
work was John Hartshorn of West Farms, Connecticut.^ Hartshorn first
produced stones in northern Essex County, Massachusetts. Over seventy-
three years old, he came to West Farms to live with his daughter. His stones
are present in a number of cemeteries in eastern Connecticut. Wheeler
stones, particularly those of Type I, show a marked Hartshorn influence.
Hartshorn stones show similar elongate straight noses joined to the brows,
the same three-lobed lunettes as those on early Wheeler stones, and often
the same floral border panels. See the Mindwell Hutchinson stone of 1726 in
Lebanon (Fig. 3). The four converging hearts in the finials of Hartshorn's
Joanna [ ] stone in Norwichtown, Connecticut (Ludwig, Plate 221B), are
actually the same as those used on the Wheeler stone for Jonathan Hutchin-
son in Lebanon. The double circle around the face in Hartshorn stones is
used on almost all Wheeler stones. The Hartshorn stones for Joshua Abell
of Norwichtown and John Arnold of New London (Ludwig, Plate 222B, C)
have "curls" and "loops" beside the face that are very similar to many Wheeler
Type I stones. Furthermore, the linear "segmented" motifs on many
Hartshorn stones (Ludwig, Plate 221A, B, C, Plate 222A, D), considered by
Ludwig to be "bird" motifs, may equally well be considered as attempts to
portray stylized wings and are probably predecessors of Wheeler Type III
stones. Ludwig asserted that the use of wings by the Collins Master had to

Obadiah Wheeler

275

represent an outside influence. ^° Such may be true, but there is no direct
evidence to support the idea that any carver other than John Hartshorn had
an important influence on the early Wheeler style. We believe that Wheeler
was strongly influenced by Hartshorn and probably learned the art from him.
The diversity and skill of Wheeler innovations soon surpassed the work of
Hartshorn and mark Wheeler as a man of great technical ability and
originality, the master indeed of the whole eastern Connecticut school of
gravestone art. The importance of Wheeler's work then lies not only in its
high artistic quality and individual innovations of style, but also in its in-
fluence on a number of contemporary and later carvers to about 1800, when
the decline of the art began.

Fig. 3 Mindewel Hutchinson 1726. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

276 Connecticut Gravestones

The Period of Wheeler's Work

Students of gravestone art tend to believe they have a more precise means
of dating their artifacts than scholars of most other early American art forms
since the stones bear a date of death and were ordinarily carved soon after
this date.^^ This is partly true, but dating must be used with caution and in
conjunction with the design details carved on the stones, as it was not uncom-
mon for stones to be produced some years after the actual date of death of
the subject.

Wheeler stones carry dates ranging from 1702 to 1749. The latter date
probably was the last year in which Wheeler produced gravestones. The ear-
lier stones, however, are unquestionably "back dated." They represent design
types developed much later and, as shown in Figure 2, are isolated in time
from the years when their motifs were dominant. In attempting to establish
the early dates for Wheeler's work it is particularly important to note that on
several stones Wheeler carved the actual date that the stone was executed as
well as the date of death. The Jonathan Hutchinson stone bears a 1717
death date, but at the end of the inscription "1726" is carved, which must indi-
cate the year the stone was actually cut. The signed receipt for this stone
probably should be dated shortly after February 2, 1727, when his widow,
Mindwell Hutchinson, married the widower James Tisdale. The Thomas
Cushman stone in Lebanon indicates that he died January 9, 1727, and the
Sarah Cushman stone in the same place shows that she died December 25,
1726. Both of these stones have "1728" carved after the inscription, indicating
that both were produced at this later date.

There is no evidence that Wheeler carved stones between 1718, when he
arrived in Lebanon, and 1726, when he produced the Hutchinson stones. Yet
these early stones are not the work of a novice. It is possible that Wheeler at
least assisted in the carving of some of the stones attributed to Hartshorn. In
any event the earliest stones definitely attributable to Wheeler date from
1726.

Characteristics of Wheeler Inscriptions

Wheeler's use of letters and numbers on his stones is characteristic and is
a valuable means of attributing stones to his hand. Ligatures (combined let-

Obadiah Wheeler 277

ters) such as H & E, H & M, M & R, N & D, and N & E are frequently used.
The Aaron Burnham stone in Lisbon has the AND in HUSBAND combined
into a single letter and a Lebanon stone has the NIE in NATHANIEL
similarly combined. His capital A has a characteristic slant to the left verti-
cal. Numbers such as 2, 5, and 7 are also characteristic, as is the use of a
single or double sinuate horizontal dash separating major features or ter-
minating the inscription.

The Wheeler spelling is strikingly original and frequently inconsistent.
Many words are spelled phonetically and the flavor of New England speech
comes through charmingly in such treatments as HAR as in HAR AGE,
HAR LIS (or LIES, LISE, LYES, LYETH) and in FATHAR,
DAUGHTAR, MISTAR, BRUSTAR, JENEWARY, AGUST, DESEM-
BAR. The ampersand is frequently used unnecessarily, as in "He died
December 25 & 1726."

In early Wheeler stones little attention was paid, prior to the actual carv-
ing, to laying out the number of letters that could be carved on a given line.
The result was that Wheeler frequently came to the end of a line with letters
left over, resulting in the use of tiny superscript letters between the lines or in
such an unusual breaking of words as:

HAR^ LIS A VARTUOUS LOVJ
NG WIF & EVER SHE WAS KI
ND VNTO HAR HUSBAND &
HAR BABES WHOM SHE
HATH LEFT BEHINfD

The vagaries of Wheeler's spelling, which improved in time but was never
perfect, should not detract from an appreciation of the skill and esthetic
quality of his work. A man who could execute the facial qualities of the Ann
Johnson and Mary Clap (Fig. 15) stones in Lebanon and Windham Center
respectively, the haunting beauty of the Hannah Williams stone in Mansfield
Center, and the spatial perfection of the Thomas Bingham (Fig. 9) stone in
Windham Center must be regarded as a craftsman of the first order.

Analysis of Stone Motifs

There are five major types of Wheeler stones and several minor motifs.

278

Connecticut Gravestones

The chronology of the stones and the development of Wheeler's technique
are best understood through study of the five major types, as these stones are
not only the most numerous but were also executed with the most care and
elaboration.

Fig. 4 Abigll Tisdall 1726. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

Obadiah Wheeler 279

Type I Stones (Figs. 3-6)

Stones of this type are characterized by the presence of a series of curls
(volutes), rather than wings, on either side of the face. These curls some-
times have a rather "Medusa-like" appearance. There are seventeen extant
stones of this type, concentrated in Lebanon (eleven stones) but also present
in Mansfield Center (two), Canterbury (two), Scotland (one), and Lisbon
(one). The curls vary considerably in appearance, some being essentially a
series of loops (Figs. 3 and 4), others tightly coiled circles in two or three
series (Fig. 6). The Beulah Clark (Fig. 5) stone in Lebanon has a very
abstract "curl" motif. On two of these stones the outer "strands" end in tassels
(Fig. 4).

It is evident that Wheeler developed this early motif from Hartshorn
stones, as some of the "looped" types closely resemble a number of the
latter's stones. Furthermore, these stones always have the three-lobed
lunette that was a constant feature of Hartshorn stones.

, <>

or.

ON-W

: >M .^■

Fig. 5 Beulah Clark 1726. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

280 Connecticut Gravestones

Most Type I stones are about two feet square (above ground), although
one, the Samuel Estabrook stone in Canterbury, is much larger, three to four
feet tall.

Stones of Type I were apparently all carved in the short period between
1726 and 1728. The Exercise Conant stone (Ludwig, Plate 224B) in
Mansfield Center is dated 1722 but is almost certainly back dated.^^ These
stones constitute a remarkably homogeneous group not only in size but also
in use of motif. All have the three-lobed lunette (a rounded top with
rounded "shoulders" or "knees") and complete, "open," almond-shaped eyes.
The face is never in relief and in all but one stone a diamond design of vary-
ing complexity (Figs. 4, 5 and 6) is present in the border panels. The
diamond motif is less elaborate on later Type I stones. On twelve stones
there is a simple frame or border usually consisting of a single line (Fig. 6),
but occasionally double (Fig. 5), above the inscription without any other
horizontal design in this area. In the five stones with a horizontal design
below the face and above the inscription the center consists of a downward
pointed triangle with two circles on either side connected to a base line by a
downswept stem (Fig. 8). These circles may be simple with only an indented
compass point in the center (called "spot circles") or they may be a more
elaborate series of circles (Fig. 10).

The finial located above the border panel is somewhat more variable than
are other features of earlier Type I stones, although it is one of the least vari-
able features of later stones. Three stones possess finials that relate these
stones directly to a Hartshorn influence. We have previously mentioned the
four converging hearts. Two stones (one of which is illustrated as Fig. 3) pos-
sess an initial in each finial, a feature on some Hartshorn stones. On ten
stones an eight-rayed rosette (Figs. 5 and 6) is present, on three stones a six-
rayed rosette (Fig. 4). One stone possesses a circle with an indented central
compass point.

The sides of Type I stones are usually straight. In only three cases is there
a noticeable taper toward the base.

Type I stones represent the earliest known work of Wheeler. A number of
early features were retained on stones of later types, such as the open
"almond" eyes, use of a triangle in the center horizontal series rather than a

Obadiah Wheeler

281

heart, spot circles rather than six-rayed rosettes laterally in the horizontal
row, and eight-rayed rosettes in the finials. The 1726 Rachil Fitch stone (Fig.
7) in Lebanon is especially significant in showing transition. This stone
retains a rather "loop-like" curl motif lateral to the face, but beyond this are
several distinct wing vanes similar to those found on Type II stones. The
Susannah Griswold stone of 1727 (Fig. 8) in Windham Center has typical, al-
though crude. Type II wings but retains the diamond border panel motif and
the eight-rayed rosette. The transitional nature of these three stones is
remarkable and links Type I and Type II stones so obviously that they leave
absolutely no doubt that the same craftsman produced both types of stones.

All but one of the Type I stones possess capital letters in the inscription
except for an occasional small superior e. The use of a colon between words
is a primitive feature of colonial stones that is frequently used here.

£''''.r^

|^<^| .^tme ri:|f ^b^k ri,E;f^, Vr

,-. . . rut coinitE r*:/i 'i.?ol<N\^, i

Fig. 6 Thomas Cushman 1727. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

282 Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 7 Rachil Fitch 1726. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

The identification of Obadiah Wheeler as the carver of these stones rests
on the probate evidence relative to the Mindwell Hutchinson and Jonathan
Hutchinson stones, as previously discussed. The Mindwell Hutchinson stone
(Fig. 3) compares with other Type I stones in all significant details except for
the presence of a floral design on the border panels. It shares with the James
Tisdale stone in Lebanon the presence of initials in the finials. The curls and
face are typical of the other stones. The very crude Hutchinson child stone^^
(Fig. 17) possesses, below the ground level, a remarkable series of practice
carvings. One of these is an elaborate triangle or diamond motif which is ex-
actly the same as that found completely developed on the border panels of
the stone of her father, Jonathan Hutchinson, and Lebanon's Josiah Baker
and Abigail Tisdale (Fig. 4) stones. Thus there seems no reason to doubt
that the same hand carved the Mindwell and Jonathan Hutchinson stones as
carved all of the other Type I stones.

Type II Stones (Figs. 8, 9 and 10)

Stones of Type II may be characterized by the presence of a pair of

Obadiah Wheeler

283

downswept wings, one attached to each side of the face by a narrow pedicel
(Fig. 9). Each wing is composed of a series of elongate simple vanes that ter-
minate downward. The eyes are always open, complete "almonds," and the
face is never in strong relief. Transitions from Type I stones have been noted
above.

If transitionals are included, there are twenty-three stones of this type
(Table I), located in Lebanon, Windham Center, Canterbury, Norwichtown,
Scotland, Mansfield Center, and Ashford. Seventeen stones bear dates from
1727 to 1731. Two stones bear the partial date "172" - with the year ob-
viously not eroded but left blank. The Abel Ganes stone in Lebanon is dated
1718, but is amost certainly back dated.

I t^s.^^^

'. l>rK!y 'o? •Air'^' kit
Xflhe wife of ca
a"^ I f llor^y/ich^y/ho
iX^\ 1 7:xit ^ ill IKe ^^

Fig. 8 Susannah Griswold 1717. Windham.

284 Connecticut Gravestones

Type II stones mark Wheeler's first departure from the three-lobed
lunette. While eighteen stones retain this feature, one has a strongly trian-
gular top, one a slight triangle, and three (two a "double stone") a rounded
top. A small heart replaces the primitive triangle in the center of the horizon-
tal row on four stones. The triangle is retained on seven. The use of the six-
rayed rosette in the lateral horizontal row (Fig. 15) first appears on the Wil-
liam Moore 1728 stone in Windham Center. Spot circles are present on ten
stones. The eight-rayed rosette is used on two stones in the finial. The spot
circle also appears here twice, but the transition is strongly to the six-rayed
rosette, present on fifteen stones, which is such a dominant feature on later
Wheeler stones.

The border panels are diverse on Type II stones. While simple framing is
present on ten stones and the diamond motif which predominates on Type I
stones is used twice (Fig. 8), new motifs appear. Six stones possess a sinuate
ellipse pattern. One stone has a series of alternating complete and paired
half spot-circles. Two stones vary this pattern by using sbc-rayed rosettes in
the same alternating series. Another stone uses an elongate basally tapering
triangle (Fig. 9). This last stone, that of Thomas Bingham (1730), located in
Windham Center, not Norwichtown as stated by Ludwig,^'* is one of the most
beautiful stones produced by Wheeler in terms of both the simplicity and sym-
metry of the design. Wheeler's technique improved rapidly during this
period, as can be seen by comparing the fluidity of the wings of the Susannah
Griswold stone (Fig. 8) and that of the Bingham stone (Fig. 9). Wheeler
tapered the sides of twenty Type II stones. This, together with the greater
variation in the size of stones, demonstrates his increasing release from the
conformity evident in his earlier work.

The method used by Wheeler in carving the wings of Type II stones may
be reconstructed from the appearance of four children's stones, three in
Lebanon, one in Colchester. These are simple, small stones intended for
children who died at two to nine years of age. Here the wings are pediculate
as in classic Type II stones and have a scalloped or serrated lower margin,
but the surface of the wings is solid without the individual elongate vanes, or
feathers, being carved. They have the appearance of being "blanks." The
1729 Mary Jones stone in Colchester possesses a unique lateral horizontal

Obadiah Wheeler

285

motif with the words "O ETER" on the left and "NITY" on the right.^^

Important transitional stones between Types II and III stand in Lebanon.
The Elizabeth Buel stone, 1729, (Fig. 10) possesses typical sweeping Type II
wings but each elongate vane bears a series of transverse cuts across the sur-
face to give the effect of a series of overlapping shorter feathers indicative of
the secondaries or coverts over the basal portions of the primaries of actual
birds. This feature is definitely transitional to Type III stones. The Ephraim
Terry stone of 1730(?) (Fig. 11) has the rigid stylized downcurved wings with
rounded tips of the "feathers" as in Type III stones, but each vane is entire as
in Type II stones and lacking the cross cuts to give the effect of overlapping
feathers as in Type III stones. Thus this is obviously a transitional stone.

Fig. 9 Deacon Thomas Bingham 1729/30. Windham.

286

Connecticut Gravestones

There is great variation in the skill and quality of the work exhibited on
Type II stones. The variation is so great as to suggest that possibly a son or
apprentice was assisting Wheeler. However, the great similarity of design
and use of motifs leave little doubt that Wheeler designed all of them.

More than half of the Type II and Type III stones have the inscription
carved in small letters, of which the letter a is often most unusual and distinc-
tive. The "bulb" of this a is shaped like a tear drop and is frequently attached
near the top of the ascender (Fig. 9). Where capital letters are used, the R is
unusual in that the right-hand descender is separated from the bulb and
peculiarly carved.

Wheeler's spelling had improved considerably by the time he produced
Type II and Type III stones. Nevertheless, on about twenty-five percent of
the stones the phonetic spelling is evident, particularly in the use of A for E.
Sarah Leffingwell, buried under a Type III stone of 1730 in Norwichtown, is
characterized as "A VARTUOUS AND MOST INIENIUOUS JENTEAL
WOMAN."

,^\//-- Duc'« n\h

Fig. 10 Elisabeth Buel 1729. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

Obadiah Wheeler

287

\m'-^'-^'^-i^-m^/-K'!i)

Fig. 11 Ephraim Terry 1730(?). Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

Type in Stones (Figs. 12 and 13)

Stones of Type III retain the pedicel connection of the wings to the face,
but the individual elongate vanes are each bisected with a series of cross cuts
of lunate shape giving the effect of overlapping feathers. The wings have a
more rigid stylized appearance and usually lack the free-flowing outward
sweep of the best examples of Type II wings. The eyes remain as open al-
monds on all of these stones. Type III stones mark the first appearance of
pronounced relief of the face outward from the surface of the stone (the
Josiah Dewey 1732 stone, Lebanon). The use of simple double framing
above the inscription is very common, appearing on seven Type III stones;
otherwise, spot circles are used in the lateral horizontals in all but the
elaborate James Fitch stone (Fig. 13) in Lebanon, on which the use of six-
rayed rosettes was first introduced in the area.

There are twenty Type III stones (Table II). They exist in Norwichtown,
Lebanon, Windham Center, Exeter, Mansfield Center, Canterbury, and Ash-
ford. All but four are dated between 1730 and 1733. One is dated 1729, two
in Lebanon 1711, and one 1702. The latter three stones are certainly back

288

Connecticut Gravestones

dated. The James Fitch stone, dated 1702 and located in Lebanon, is a
memorial to the founder of the town. It is a very large stone with an
elaborate inscription written completely in Latin (unique among Wheeler
stones) and probably is the last stone of Type III that Wheeler carved. Prob-
ably all Type III stones were executed in the period between 1730 and 1733,
twelve in 1732-1733 alone.

Fig. 12 Capt. Thomas Huntington 1732. Windham.

Obadiah Wheeler

289

-; i' c'

V. ,

i s

'hisritt'

,V *.!%'. '*?.•.!,

Fig. 13 Reverend James Fitch 1702. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

290

Connecticut Gravestones

Type IV Stones (Figs. 14 and 15)

Stones of Type IV represent the zenith of Wheeler's work. They are the
most numerous and include a number of his largest and most elaborate
stones. Type IV stones are characterized by especially striking wings in
which the pedicel attachment to the head is abandoned and the wings are in
contact with the head along the entire lateral surface of the head. The in-
dividual vanes are "layered," as in Type III stones but with the vanes curved
out and slightly angled upward, or as Ludwig described it, in a sun-ray
motif.^^ The effect, when viewed from the perspective of the previous types,
is of Wheeler having reversed and "twisted over" the wings.

*r fj^

•X... , €i

loYYO'clKyii

3^k<L'^^P4^xAV.CJ.'Al\.

Fig. 14 Clap child 1736. Windliam.

Obadiah Wheeler 291

Stones of Type IV also introduced a striking change in the appearance of
the eyes. On all previous types the eyes appear to be open in that there is an
almond-shaped center and complete circular lids below as well as above. On
the majority of Type IV stones (fifty-four of the seventy-four where the eyes'
appearance is still recognizable), the lower lids are absent and the area of the
upper lids is represented by two or more lunate cuts or the eyes appear
closed (Fig. 14). Wheeler thus was here producing eyes that were closed (in
both cases) rather than open and staring. On the better stones this innova-
tion gives considerable expression to the face. The closed-eye style began to
predominate in 1736 in twelve examples. There are examples on stones
dated 1731, 1734, and 1735, but these are perhaps back dated. Before 1736
open eyes appear on sixteen of twenty Type IV stones. After 1735 open eyes
occur on only five of fifty-four stones. The open-eye motif was never com-
pletely abandoned, as it also appears on Type V stones. Once closed eyes
were developed, they predominated.^^

\ • n

Fig. 15 Mary Clap 1736. Windham.

292 Connecticut Gravestones

We have analyzed eighty-four of these stones. A few other Type IV stones
exist but were not included in the analysis because of their poor condition.
The omissions do not change the proportionate use of the various motifs to
any significant extent. The eighty-four stones are distributed in Lebanon,
Norwichtown, Windham Center, Mansfield Center, Goshen Hill, Hebron,
Colchester, Exeter, Franklin, Coventry, Montville, Ashford, Preston,
Woodstock, and Union, and are dated from 1720 through 1749. Two stones
dated 1720 and 1725 are unquestionably back dated. A 1731 stone is prob-
ably back dated also. Type IV stones were probably all produced from 1732
or 1733 through 1749.

One of the striking features of a number of Type IV stones is the relief of
the face (Fig. 15). Sometimes this relief is only slight and more evident to
the hand than to the eye; on others the face is very strongly produced out-
ward and is as close to a death mask as was developed on New England
gravestones. Eighteen Type IV stones have the face in such strong relief.
There are an additional seven stones extant which have some relief evident.

Where a horizontal row is developed above the inscription (sucty-nine
stones), the central heart is almost always used. Only two of these stones
(1734 and 1738) retain the use of the primitive triangle. Laterally on the
horizontal row the use of six-rayed rosettes predominates. The triangle motif
was not completely abandoned, but is present on only eight stones and then
always in conjunction with two or two and one-half spot circles on either side,
although the latter are, interestingly, sometimes present when the triangle
has been abandoned (Fig. 14). Where the six-rayed rosette is used in this
area, two rosettes are present on either side in the great majority of stones
(fifty-three) (Fig. 16). Two stones, however, possess only a single rosette on
each side, three have one and one-half rosettes, two possess two and one-
half, and one stone has three on either side.

At the finial a six-rayed rosette is used on all but ten stones; of these, six
lack configuration in this area and four use spot circles (two each, dated 1736
and 1739).

The border panels on Type IV stones are often quite elaborate. On thirty
stones only a frame is present (sometimes elaborate) around the inscription
(Figs. 14 and 15), but such a style appears only once on a stone cut subse-

Obadiah Wheeler 293

quent to 1739 (1746). The most common design is some combination of six-
rayed rosettes, such as: an ahernating series of paired half rosettes and a
complete rosette (twenty-one stones); a series of complete rosettes (ten); a
series of paired half rosettes (one); a series of paired half rosettes but with a
sinuate ellipse pattern interwoven between them (one); and a series of com-
plete rosettes in the upper portion and simple circles toward the base (two).
Only two stones bear a series of spot circles (dated 1733 and 1735), which
may have been a primitive feature retained on these advanced stones. A tri-
angle or diamond motif resembling that of Type I stones, but more elaborate,
is present on two stones. An ellipse pattern occurs twice. Two stones possess
the elongate triangles that first appeared on the Type II Thomas Bingham
stone (Fig. 9). On seven stones an elaborate floral design is used which is
much more ornate than Wheeler's usual style and probably reflects the in-
fluence of Benjamin Collins. This floral pattern frequently incorporates the
use oi the fleur-de-lis.

The top margin of Type IV stones is also more variable than in preceding
types. Twenty-five of the most elaborate stones have the top prolonged into
a sharp elongate triangle (Fig. 15) but there are a number of other motifs, in-
cluding a primitive three-lobed top on twenty-five stones, a rounded top
(fifteen), a straight or nearly straight top (four), a rounded top with a low
secondary central elevation (three), a low sloping triangle (three), a flat cen-
ter with angulate lateral area (one), and a rounded top with the central area
raised into a prominent rounded elevation (four).

The sides of these stones are both straight and tapered inward to the base,
but the latter condition predominates, appearing as it does on fifty-six stones.

The small a usually differs on Type IV stones from that used on stones of
Types II and III. It is usually much taller than the other small letters and can
easily be confused with a letter d. Type IV stones are the most numerous
and elaborate of the Wheeler stones.

Type V Stones (Fig. 16)

Stones of Type V resemble those of Type IV in several ways. Type V
stones possess wings which are broadly in contact with the sides of the face.
The elongate vanes slope outward and slightly upward as in Type IV stones.

294 Connecticut Gravestones

but each elongate vane is complete and not separated into layered series by
cross impressions. It is possible that Wheeler considered these stones
simpler versions of Type IV stones and may have used them when a lower
price was involved or when he was hurried. Unless a considerable number
were back dated, Type V stones were first developed in the 1730s, perhaps as
early as Type IV stones, but did not become numerous until after 1740.
While many of these stones show care in preparation, others are surprisingly
crude, with asymmetrical eyes and shallow lettering and carving of motifs. In
some cases stone of inferior quality was used. A number of these stones,
therefore, are so badly eroded that it is difficult to decipher the characteris-
tics. It is likely that some of these stones were produced, at least in part, by
an apprentice working with Wheeler. Nevertheless, one cannot avoid the
overall impression that Wheeler's work deteriorated in the 1740s.

We have analyzed fifty-two of these stones, dated from 1712 to 1749.
Stones of 1712, 1718 and 1725 were unquestionably back dated. Some of the
stones of the 1730s may have been as well. These stones predominated in
Wheeler's later years, twenty-eight being dated after 1740. Type V stones
may be found in Lebanon, Norwichtown, Windham Center, Exeter, Goshen
Hill, Franklin, Colchester, Coventry, Preston, Hebron, Mansfield Center, and
Woodstock.

The motifs correspond closely to those used on Type IV stones. The face
is in relief on six stones, and sometimes is as strongly produced as on the
most elaborate Type IV stones. The triangle is retained in the center horizon-
tal on only two early stones, whereas the heart is used forty-two times. The
lateral horizontal row uses the six-rayed rosette thirty-six times and varies the
expression as follows: two rosettes on each side (on twenty-four stones) (Fig.
16), one on each side (five), one and one-half on each side (three), two and
one-half on each side (two), and three on each side (two). Spot circles occur,
surprisingly, in the horizontal on eight stones as follows: two on each side
(four), one each side (three), three each side (one). The remaining stones
use only a frame below the face and above the inscription.

The area of the finial is represented by a six-rayed rosette on forty-one
stones. One stone has circles. The area is undifferentiated on the remaining
stones.

Obadiah Wheeler

295

Fig. 16 Hannah Ripley 1738. Windham.

296 Connecticut Gravestones

The border panels display many of the same motifs as do Type IV stones
but with less variation. Two types predominate, a single or double frame
(nineteen stones) and a series of six-rayed rosettes (nineteen). Only one
stone has alternating complete and paired half-rosettes. In two stones the
upper portion has rosettes and the lower portion simple circles. One stone
possesses an elongate triangle. Ten stones have border panels that show an
elaborate floral or fleur-de-lis design. The sides and tops of Type V stones
have the same forms as those of Type IV.

Distribution of Stones

Wheeler stones have been identified in twenty-three cemeteries in twenty-
one communities in eastern Connecticut.^^ Of these, only the Lebanon and
Mansfield Center cemeteries contain examples of all major types. As may be
seen in Table I, the early stones were not widely distributed. While there
may be some bias in the figures given below because destruction in some
cemeteries may have been greater than in others, we believe the figures to be
quite accurate in reflecting the concentration in the area near Lebanon, i.e.,
within the society in which Wheeler lived.

Table I and Figure 1 indicate the disposition of Wheeler stones. Colonial
gravestones may reveal important clues to the degree of cultural interchange
between communities during this period. One must be cautious, of course, in
using evidence from only a single craftsman. A more rewarding approach
will ultimately be to analyze each graveyard and each craftsman completely,
as we have done here. Nevertheless, the distribution of Wheeler stones sug-
gests the existence of a close cultural relationship between the villages of
Lebanon, Franklin, Norwichtown, Windham Center, Mansfield Center, Ex-
eter, and Goshen Hill, with the relationship declining rapidly beyond these
towns. It is of particular significance that the cultural influence appears to
extend only a short distance west (Hebron, Columbia, Colchester) and not to
have reached such eastern Connecticut villages as Brooklyn, Pomfret, or
Putnam.^^

Minor Motifs and Children's Stones

In addition to the face and wing, or face and curl, motifs that occur on the

Obadiah Wheeler

297

great majority of Wheeler stones, there are scattered stones by his hand that
use other patterns. In a few cases these may have been experiments that
were not repeated. Mostly, however, they were used on small stones for
children, presumably when less expense was desired, although many
children's stones were of the major types. The motifs on these small stones
often resemble those employed on many Wheeler footstones. Consequently,
where only one stone remains, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether it is a
headstone or footstone.^°

298 Connecticut Gravestones

The most common motif used on these stones is a series of spreading rays
at the top of the stone that curve outward and upward from the center of the
stone. These conceivably represent a very abstract "tree" motif. The same
configuration is occasionally used near the apex of large strongly triangular
headstones, particularly those of Types IV and V, and also is found on
footstones. Stones of this type are found in Lebanon, Franklin, Hebron, Ex-
eter, Columbia, and Hampton, and date from 1736 to 1745. The age at death
indicated on stones of this motif ranges from ten months to eleven years, with
the exception of one marking the grave of an eighty-five-year-old man in
Franklin, Joseph Kingsbury.

A second motif is a series of only six-rayed rosettes in various combina-
tions and sizes. Stones of this type are in Lebanon (five) and Colchester
(one). Ages of subjects vary from one month to eleven years. Two Lebanon
stones are dated 1717 and 1719 (certainly back dated). The others are from
1732 to 1740. There are two Lebanon stones (dated 1739 and 17-1) of
children aged two and six where a large heart encloses the inscription.
Footstones also employ this motif.

The Lebanon cemetery also possesses two stones with faces that do not
conform to any of the types previously discussed. One of these, dated 1742
and probably the work of Wheeler, has a large six-rayed rosette replacing the
wings on either side of the face. The second, a 1730 stone, somewhat
resembles Type V stones but only four unusually elongate, straight slender
vanes are present in each wing. This stone might be a precursor of Types IV
and V stones but is more likely an unsuccessful innovation and may even be
the work of a Wheeler apprentice.

The final type of gravestone produced by Wheeler is a very large, rectan-
gular slab with divisions forming squares. Within each square is a separate
inscription. In the Lebanon cemetery there are two of these large slabs, both
broken but placed upright along the longitudinal axis.^^ It is quite possible
that they originally were placed flat on the ground. There is no evidence of
leg attachments to indicate that these slabs were intended to be tables. One
of these stones contains the inscription for a Mrs. Mary Sprague, her three
infant children, and a ten-year-old child named Elknah Tisdeal. The second
slab has inscriptions for the two wives of Benjamin Sprague, one of whom

Obadiah Wheeler

299

was also named Mary.

Footstones

The footstones produced by Obadiah Wheeler are as distinctive as his
headstones. They include some of the most unique footstones ever produced
in New England. Like the headstones, Wheeler footstones show an evolution
in style. Early stones are usually square or rectangular although occasionally
triangularly peaked. There is a plain frame or ribbon border with a large
capital letter inscription within. In some cases spot circles or six-rayed
rosettes appear on these early stones.

From approximately 1734 on the upswept ray or stylized tree motif occurs.
On footstones this ray motif is often associated with large hearts around the
inscription.

The most elaborate footstones are usually associated with Type IV and V
headstones and are quite uniquely Wheeler's. Often these footstones are
very large and vary greatly in shape.

Fig. 18 Jabez Fitch 1736. Footstone. Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

300

Connecticut Gravestones

Some are football- or elliptical-shaped (Fig. 18); others large round or
ovate discs; some are square or rectangular; and a few are deeply scalloped
along the margins. On many of these elaborate footstones there is a wheel-
like circle, or several circles, and often within the inner circle a large six-
rayed rosette is present. Between the two circles the name and date are
usually carved with the letters and figures forming a complete circle. Some-
times elaborate use is made of additional or exclusive series of six-rayed
rosettes.

An occasional stone, particularly that of a Hutchinson child,^^ is evidently
the work of an apprentice. The Hutchinson (1717) (Fig. 17) stone is so crude
that it could not be attributed to Obadiah Wheeler except for the practice
carving below the ground level on the stone.

The Solomon Williams footstone (Fig. 19) in Lebanon is in its overall im-
pact quite unlike any other stone carved by Wheeler. It is an elaborate ar-
tifact, very carefully carved with a fancy fleur-de-lis design. The letters and
inscriptions are of the Wheeler type, and the accompanying headstone is un-
mistakably Wheeler's.

Fig. 19 Solomon Williams 1748. Footstone.
Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon.

Obadiah Wheeler

301

TABLE I
Distribution of Wheeler Gravestones

Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Total

Lebanon

Norwichtown

Windham Center

Franklin

Exeter

Mansfield Center

Goshen Hill

Hebron (2)
Scotland

6
6

Canterbury
Colchester

5
5

Coventry

Mystic

Ashford

2
4?

4
4
3

Preston(2)
Woodstock

1
1

2
1

Lisbon

Union

Montville

Columbia

Hampton

TABLE II

Obadiah Wheeler Gravestones

Name

Cemetery

Type Date of Death Age

Abbe, Richard

Windham Center

1737

Abel, Lydia

Norwichtown

1739

Adgate, Thomas

1736

Alleine, Mary

Windham Center

172-

AUin, William

1747

Archer, Annar

Exeter

1741

Badcock, Mary

Coventry

1735

58?

Bailey, Isaac

Lebanon

III

1711

Baker, Josiah

1726

Baldwin, Abis

Norwichtown

1737

Barber, David

Hebron

1739

Barker, John

Lebanon

Bingham, Thomas

Windham Center

1729/30

Bingham, Abegail

1741

Birchard, John

Lebanon

1735

Bissel, Rachel

Hebron

1736

302

Connecticut Gravestones

Bliss, John

"•

1741

Bliss, Joseph

Lebanon

1730

Brewster, Jonathan

Circle

1717

& Rosettes

Brewster, Nehisuniah

1719

Bridges, Jonathan

Exeter

1738

Brigham, Paul

Coventry

1746

Brown, Dorithy

Hebron

1739

Buel, Elisabeth

Lebanon

1729

Buel, Mehetable

Solid
Wings

1726

Bugbe, Eunice

Woodstock

1745

Burnham, Aaron

Lisbon

1727

Bushnale, Aron

Lebanon

174[2?]

Bushnell, Joseph

Norwichtown

1746

Bushnell, Mary

1745

Calkin, Simon

Lebanon

Circle

1735

& Rosettes

Carew, Diadema &

Lucrecia

Norwichtown

1739

9,1

Carriar, Ruth

Colchester

1734

Caverly, Philip

1739

Chapel, Caleb

Exeter

III

1732/3

Clap, Mary

Windham Center

1736

Clap, Temprance

III

1731

Clap, (Infant)

1736

1 day

Clarke, Aaron

Exeter

1744

Clark, Beulah

Lebanon

1726

Clark, David

1735

Clark, Jonathan

1743/44

Clarke, Nathaniel

Exeter

1737

Cleveland, Samuel

Canterbury

1727

Conant, Eunice

Mansfield Center

1736

Conant, Exercise

1722

Crane, Jonathan

Lebanon

1735

Cushman, Sarah

1726

Cushman, Thomas

1727/8

Davenport, William

Coventry

1742

Dewey, Ebenezer

Lebanon

III

1711

Dewey, Hephizibah

Lebanon

III

1732

Dewey, Josiah

III

1732

Dewey, Josiah

Circle

1734

1 mo.

& Rosettes

Dimmuck, Joanna

Mansfield Center

1727

Dimmuck, Shubael

III

1732

Doggol(sp?), Experience Lebanon

1736

Doubleday, Margrat

1749

Durkee, Hannah

Franklin

1744

—

Eastabrook, Rebeckah

Canterbury

1727

Eastabrook, Samuel

1727

Edgerton, Ane

Franklin

1744

Fitch, An

Lebanon

1728

Obadiah Wheeler

Fitch, Hannah

1738

Fitch, Jabez

1736

Fitch, James

Canterbury

1727

Fitch, James

Lebanon

III

1702

Fitch, John

Windham Center

1743

Fitch, Mary

Canterbury

III

1732/3

Fitch, Mason

Lebemon

1734

Fitch, Rachil

1726

Fitch, Sarah

1720

Fitch, Simon & Cypron

1736

5,3

Fobes, John

Preston

1739

Foster, Ezekiel

Lebanon

1727

Ganes, Abel

1718

Genengs, Jonathan

Windham Center

1733

Ginings, Jemima

1736

Gookin, Elizabeth

Norwichtown

III

1731/2

Gray, Ann

Lebanon

Circle

1732

1 mo.

& Rosettes

Gray, Simeon

1742

Griswold, Susannah

Windham Center

1727

Hartshorn, David

Franklin

1738

Hartshorn, Rebeckah

1742/3

Hide, Caleb

Lebanon

Elongate 1730

Wings

Hide, Samuel

1742

Hide, William

Norwichtown

1738

Hilleious, John

Montville

1733

Hilliard,

Franklin

1739

53 days

Howard, William

Hampton

'Upswept 1736

Rays'

Hunt, Thomas, Jr.

Lebanon

1735

Huntington, Abigail

Norwichtown

III

1730

Huntington, Abigail

1734

Huntington, Andrew

Norwichtown

1739

Huntington, Christophei

• "

1735?

Huntington, Elizabeth

1735

Huntington, Elizabeth

Windham Center

1729

Huntington, Elizabeth

1733

Huntington, Lydia

Norwichtown

1737

Huntington, Preseila

1740

Huntington, Rebeckah

1725

Huntington, Sibel

1744

Huntington, Simon

1736

Huntington, Thomas

Windham Center

III

1732

Huntington, Eunice

Norwichtown

III

1732

Hutchison, John

Hebron

'Upswept 1742

Rays'

Hutchison, Jonathan

Lebanon

1726
(1717)

Hucison, Mindwell

1726
(1717)

Imo.

Janes, Mary

1735

303

304

Connecticut Gravestones

Johnson, Ann

1735

Johnson, Ebenezer

1727

Jones, Mary

Colchester

Solid
Wings

1729

Kellage, Margaret

1747

Kingsbury, Joseph

Franklin

'Upswept 1741

Rays'

Kingsle, John

Scotland

Solid
Wings

1733

Lasell, Johney

1727

Leffmgwell, Sara

Norwichtown

III

1730

Leffingwell, Thomas

III

1733

Lilie, George

Scotland

1719

Lilie, Rebeckah

1719

Lilie, Sarah

1713

Loomis, Elisabeth

Colchester

1736

Loomis, EUzabeth

Exeter

1742

Lx)thrup, Abigail

Norwichtown

1734

104

Lothrup, Israeli

1733

Lothrup, Rebeckah

1737

Lothrup,

III

1732

8,6,1

Mead, John

Coventry

1746

Metcalf, Daniel

Lebanon

'Upswept 1742

37 days

Rays'

Metcalf, Eliphalet

1745

10 mo., 21 days

Metcalf, Jonathan

1738

Moore, WilUam

Windham Center

1728

Mory, Jerusha

Lebanon

1736

Otis, Delight

Colchester

Rosettes 1740

Otis, Nath

1740

Palmer, Amasa

Scotland

1727

10 mo.

Parker, Jacob

Ashford

1731

Parker, Sarah

III

1731/2

Peck, Benjamin

Franklin

1742

Peck?, Joseph

'Upswept 1731

15 mo.

Rays'

Phelps, Abi

Lebanon

1742

Phelps, David

1747

Phelps, Esther

Solid
Wings

1734

Phelps, Joseph

1735

Phelps, Joseph

1747

Phelps, Submit

Heart

17-1

Post, Jabez

Norwichtown

1725

Post, John

1718

Post, Samuel

1735

Post, Stephen & Samue

1735

26,1

Raymond, Elizabeth

Montville

173-

Renalls, Joseph

Norwichtown

1728/9

Ripley, Hannah

Windham Center

1738

Ripley, Jeremiah

1736

Ripley, Joshua

1739

Obadiah Wheeler

Ripley, Mary

1731

Ripley, Nehiamiah

1736

71?

Robinson, Experience

Scotland

1727

Rollo-, William

Hebron

1732

Sabin, John

Franklin

1742

43?

Sargant, John

Mansfield Center

1745

Sawyer, Jonathan

Hebron

1737

Sleuman, David

Franklin

1742

Sluman, Hannah

Lebanon

1736

Sluman, Joseph

1744

Sluman, Sarah

Franklin

1742

Sluman, Thomas

1742

67?

Smith, Hannah

Preston

1743

Sprague, Barnabus

Lebanon

Slab

17-8

1 mo.

Sprague, Benjamin

Slab

1723

3 mo.

Sprague, Frelove

Slab

1722

3 mo.

Sprague, Mary

Slab

1721

Sprague, Mary

Slab

1723

Sprague, Prudence

Slab

1726

Stoares, Martha

Mansfield Center

172-

Strong, Abijah

Exeter

1732

Terry, Dan

Lebanon

1739

Terry, Ephriam

1730?

Thatcher, — - &

1740

12,-

Thomas, Mary

Goshen Hill

1740

Thorp, Peter

Exeter

1734

Throope, Amos

Woodstock

1735

Throope, Chloe &

Issabella

Lebanon

1736-37

3 mo., 12 hrs

Throope, Dan

1737

Tiffany, Hanah

Ashford

1734

Tilden, Stephen

Lebanon

1727

Tisdale, Abigail

1726

Tisdeal, Elknah

Slab

1731

Tisdale, James

1727

Trescold, Bridgett

Mansfield Center

1744

Vetch, Andrew

Goshen Hill

1742

Vetch, Sarah

Lebanon

Solid
Wings

172-

Wadsworth, John

Goshen Hill

1736/7

Wales, Abner

Windham Center

III

1733?

Wales, Esther

1737

Wales, Susannah

1737

Wales, Susannah

1730

Waterman, Mary

Norwichtown

1736

Wattle, Abigael

Goshen Hill

1744

Wattles, Judeth

1742

Wattle, William

1737

Wayman, Ebenezer

Union

1746

Webster, Georg

Lebanon

1749

23?

Webster, John

1736

Webster, Samuel

1742

305

306

Connecticut Gravestones

West, Sarah

Goshen Hill

V 1743?

Williams, Alice

Lebanon

IV 1740

Williams, Eleazer

Goshen Hill

IV 1740

Williams, Eleazer

Mansfield Center

IV 1740/2

Williams, Hannah

IV 1742

Williams, Lydia

Exeter

III 1731

Williams, Precisla

Lebanon

Williams, Samuel

IV 1742

1 mo.

Williams, Solomon

IV 1748

Witter, Ebenezer

Preston

V 1712

Woodward, Abigail

Lebanon

Heart 1739

Woodworth, Anne

Rosette 1742
Wings

1,15?

Wright,[Writ] Elizabeth

Windham Center

II 1727

, Jonathan

Lebanon

IV 1738

Markers Represented by Footstones Only

Davenport, Samuel

Exeter

only 1732
Border

3 weel

Loomis, Isaiah

'Upswept ~
Rays'

Noritshon?, Elizabeth

'Upswept -
Rays'

—

Holbrook, Caleb

Lebanon

Circles --

Addenda

Since the original publication of this article the following stones carved by Obadiah
Wheeler have been discovered.

Bolton (Center burying ground)

Kingsbery, Deborah V 1745

Bozrah (Johnson burying ground)

Hilliard, John V 1744

Columbia

Lyman, Anna

1737

Coventry (South Street burying ground)
Fowller, Hannah IV

An illegible eroded stone

1743

Franklin (Gager burying ground)

Edgerton, John II 1730

This stone is for a twenty-one-year-old boy who was killed by the bite of a rattlesnake.
This statement on a fine Wheeler stone definitely establishes the former presence of
these reptiles in the area from which they have now long been exterpated.

Obadiah Wheeler 307

Hampton (Old Litchfield burying ground)
Durkee, John Dec. V 1739

Lisbon (Ames burying ground)

Hebard, Deborah IV 1737

Stone fallen and buried.

Norwich (Royal Indian burying ground)

Pompi Uncas

Seasar Uncas

The stone for Uncas, the great chief of the Mohicans, may also have been in this bury-
ing ground. It is now in the Slater museum in Norwich. Uncas's grave in the Royal
burying ground is a later obelisk.

Plainfield

Dean, Christopher ~ 1740

Preston (Fobes-Ames burying ground)

Fobes, John Dec. IV 1739

Tracy, Margarate IV 1743

Putnam (Aspinwall burying ground)

Fisk, John IV 1721

Scotland (Palmer)

Cook, Phineas II 1728

Bristol, Rhode Island

Peck, Joseph V 1735

Throope, Elisabeth II 1727

Bristol, Rhode Island (St. Michael's churchyard)
Throope, Sarah IV 1736

Dickran and Ann Tashjian published in 1974, the same year the above article appeared, a
book entitled Memorials for Children of Change (Middletown, Conn.) in which they discuss
symbolism on colonial gravestones. Unfortunately they have confused the work of Obadiah
Wheeler and Benjamin Collins in a manner that invalidates the evidence upon which they base
a number of conclusions. The following stones assigned to Collins are actually Wheeler
stones: Deacon Thomas Leffmgwell (1733), Abigail Huntington (1735) and Deacon Chris-
topher Huntington (1735).

One suspects Dr. Caulfield might have wondered if Obadiah Wheeler really thought of his
symbolism in the manner expressed by the Tashjians, as for example, "This metaphysical view
is further strengthened by the presence of the heart within the total pattern. Its association
with both the angel and the frieze implies that man is a composite of the spiritual and the ra-
tional, a creature whose dualities are not exclusive but interpenetrative."

308 Connecticut Gravestones

NOTES

Mr. Slater wishes to thank Miss Molly Hubbard and Mrs. Kathleen Schmidt of the University
of Connecticut for aid in the preparation of illustrations, Mrs. Ralph Wetzel for critically read-
ing the manuscript, and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation for providing
typing facilities. [Note appearing in original publication.]

1. For a general analysis of the subject, see Edwin Dethlefsen and James Deetz, "Death's
heads, Cherubs, and Willow Trees: Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Cemeteries,"
American Antiquity, XXXI (1966), 502-510.

2. Allan I. Ludwig, Graven Images: New England Stonecarving and Its Symbols 1650-1815
(Middletown, Conn., 1966), 380-381.

3. Connecticut Gravestones IX.

4. Probate Court Department. Connecticut State Library, Hartford.

5. Probate Court Department. Connecticut State Library, Hartford.

6. Concord, Massachusetts Births, Marriages, and Deaths 1635-1850 (n.d.), 17, 54, 59, 63, 67,

73.

7. Land Records of the Town of Lebanon, Connecticut. Book 3, 206-208. Lebanon Town
Hall.

8. Concord, Massachusetts Births, Marriages, and Deaths, 54.

9. Ludwig, Graven Images, Plates 221A, B, C; 222A, B, C attributed some Hartshorn stones to
Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connecticut. Caulfield, Connecticut Gravestones XII,
has shown the stones in question to be the work of Hartshorn.

10. Ludwig, Graven Images, 380.

11. Dethlefsen and Deetz, "Death's Heads," 502.

12. The Exercise Conant stone is now preserved in the Mansfield Historical Society's museum.
There is an excellent replica in place in the Mansfield Center burying ground.

13. The statement in the caption to Plate 22 of the original article that this stone is the
footstone of the 1726 Mindwell Hutchinson stone is an unfortunate error. A careful ex-
amination of the picture will show clearly that this is a headstone for an unnamed daughter
of Jonathan and Mindwell Hutchinson who died in 1717 when a month old. This makes
the practice carving below ground very enigmatic indeed. It is hardly conceivable that
Obadiah Wheeler would have made such elaborate practice carving and at the same time
have produced such a crude stone above ground. I can only speculate that this was the first
crude attempt by Wheeler at making gravestones and that he pulled the stone up (it's a
very small stone) and practiced on it when making the Jonathan Hutchinson stone, or that
it was made by another hand and used later for practice by Wheeler. If it is the latter case,
it is the only stone of this type to be found today in any Lebanon burying ground.

Obadiah Wheeler 309

14. Ludwig, Graven Images, Plate 223C.

15. For an amusing account of Dr. Caulfield's relationship to this stone see the note by James
A. Slater, "The Fate of Peter Nity." Association for Gravestone Studies Newsletter 4:20.
(1980).

16. Ludwig, Graven Images, 189.

17. Peter Benes in a 1987 article [Chapter 7, Mirror and Metaphor, ed. D. Ingersol, Jr., and G.
Bronitisley (Lanham, Md., 1987), 140-141] suggests that the change in the faces on
Wheeler stones gave them an "ecstatic" expression, that the key date was 1736 and that this
was associated with a mid-century religious revival, and the Wheeler's closed-eye stones
are the earliest expression on gravestones of this change in religious enthusiasm. This may
well be true as Wheeler stones from the same period tend to have smiling mouth slits. It
does, however, bring to mind Tolstoy's warning about cause and effect when he states his
amazement that whenever his watch shows twelve o'clock noon a great bell in the tower
rings and he finds it remarkable that the little watch can cause that great bell to toll. Cer-
tainly there has been no lack of speculation about the symbolism on Wheeler stones. The
Tashjians believe that Type IV Wheeler stones are sun symbols and have commented ver-
bally to me that they believe the large Wheeler footstones are meant to represent the eye
of God, whereas Dr. Caulfield and I had felt they tended merely to show an exuberant use
of the compass by Obadiah.

18. Both Preston and Hebron have two cemeteries with Wheeler gravestones.

19. The Aspinwall burying ground in Putnam (see addenda) had a beautiful Type IV Wheeler
stone for John Fisk (1721, back dated). This stone was missing from the burying ground in
the faU of 1989.

20. Students using the old cemetery in Franklin, Connecticut, should be aware that in the
spring of 1971 the colonial stones were all dug up and placed in windrows. This action was
taken to remove woody plant growth, straighten rows and replant grass. Unfortunately the
stones no longer have any semblance of their original spatial relationship to one another.
The people involved also had no idea that each grave was marked by a footstone as well as
a headstone so that the footstone for a given individual is often far down the line from the
headstone for the same individual.

21. In the late 1980s these slabs, together with several fallen Wheeler, Collins and Manning
stones, were placed flat on the ground and encased in cement. Today they lie exposed to
the rain and snow and are deteriorating rapidly. They are disfiguring to what is otherwise
an outstanding colonial burying ground and are examples of the very worst type of
"preservation." These examples, in contrast to the Jonathan Hutchinson stone, which after
being stolen and returned has been placed indoors where it is safely protected from the ele-
ments, should be an object lesson to those who oppose removal of gravestones, for
Lebanon has made an attempt, although a misguided one, to preserve these stones in situ.

310

Connecticut Gravestones

S^'. - '

Fig. 1 Abr[a]ham Pease 1749. Enfield.

,ftr- \5^^ >

Hem Lies^th^ ?^9

I^BodyofHFrAb

Fig. 2 Mrs. Abiah Kent 1748. Suffield.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 3IX

CONNECTICUT GRAVESTONES XVIII
Wanted: The Hook-and-Eye Man*

The Search for an Elusive Stonecutter

Once while searching for the hook-and-eye man, we lost our way near Staf-
ford Hollow, and we were happy to meet a toothless native trudging along
the road, pitch-fork in hand. When we asked for the old graveyard, he asked
us, "What do you want to go there for?" We explained that we were inter-
ested in gravestones as manifestations of early American art and that we
could often identify the stonecutter by the inscription and the design. "And
what good does that do you?" he asked us next. We had no answer, and as
we drove on we kept repeating to each other, "And what good does that do
you?"

Without doubt the hook-and-eye man was the most popular stonecutter of
his day in eastern Connecticut, where he catered to the beaver-hat trade and
won favor despite the repetitious and rather awkward creations which gave
him his name. Years ago Harriette Forbes dubbed him the "hook-and-eye
man," an appropriate name because his carved faces, made with simple
curved lines, suggest the eye of the old-fashioned garment fastener known as
hook and eye.

He was, of course, attempting to imitate earlier Hartford and Middletown
carvers, but he lacked the material, the ability, and the imagination to go
beyond the simplest designs. He embellished each moon-like face with a few
notches on the jaw-bone, presumably to resemble teeth. He also carved un-
der each bulbous nose a small turned-down mouth, which gives a sad but
ludicrous expression to his mask. Two separated, raised eyebrows completed
the face, which was surmounted by a four-pointed crown and enclosed on
either side by three tiers of wings. For important people, ministers, deacons,
and some others, he sometimes carved a formless mass exuding from the
ears, its significance still unknown.

* The original article, published in Markers I, carried a short preface by Dr. Slater about the
author. This has been omitted here because of the more complete biographical sketch at the
beginning of this volume.

312 Connecticut Gravestones

In the rounded finials, where the more skillful artists usually carved the
multi-foliate rose, a symbol of paradise since early times, the hook-and-eye
man experimented with various figures and then adopted a simple four-
leaved clover. Often he also carved a heart at the bottom of the stone, and
occasionally he supplied a footstone engraved with diamond shapes. We
took many pictures in order to compare his work with that of others, since
the old stonecutters frequently carved their letters, numerals, and designs in
their own peculiar manner, which now helps us identify their work.

One effort we made to trace the hook-and-eye man was a spot map of his
stones, in the expectation of finding him near their geographic center. Some
stones appear in Hartford, Farmington, and Wethersfield, west of the Con-
necticut River, but nine out of ten are located east of the river. His stones
occur frequently in towns along the Massachusetts border, as in Enfield,
Somers, and the Woodstocks, and they are also found in Pomfret, Brooklyn,
and Plainfield near the Rhode Island border. Although he placed an oc-
casional stone in New London, Old Lyme, and even in New York City, most
appear north of the Glastonbury-Colchester-Norwich pike.

This geographic distribution, reinforcing the clue given by the stone itself,
led us to believe that our stonecutter lived somewhere near the Bolton
quarries. The stones are nearly all gray schists. The Bolton quarries
produced a sparkling, quartz-containing schist and once occupied an impor-
tant place in Connecticut economics. Grindstones from Bolton schist were
inferior because the stone was too soft, but Bolton flagstones were in great
demand in many New England towns.

One day in summer we decided to hunt gravestones in Tolland, the an-
cestral home of President Grant. The Boston highway now skirts the town,
leaving it as it was long ago - a one-store village with shade-trees surround-
ing a typical New England green. Even the Tolland jail, overlooking a broad,
colorful valley, seemed an attractive place to live.

After inquiries we found Cider Mill Road, leading to the old graveyard,
with many exciting stones. There we were startled to come on a triple stone
for three West children, who all died, probably from diphtheria, within forty-
eight hours in March of 1775. (See Connecticut Gravestones XIV, Fig. 1.)
Their stone has many characteristics of the hook-and-eye design, even the

The Hook-and-Eye Man 313

misplaced teeth and four-pointed crown. Across the bottom of the stone, in
letters written large, is this obvious advertisement: "Made by W"^ Buckland
Ju/ Hartford." Our problem was solved, or so we thought.

Many clues favored William Buckland, Jr., as the long-sought hook-and-
eye man. Both his wife's and his mother's gravestones conform very much to
type, indeed so closely that we decided that if Buckland did not make most of
the common hook-and-eye stones, he was at least related in some way to the
man who did. Reservations, however, soon began to accumulate. Buckland,
we learned, lived in East Hartford, which was contrary to our belief that the
hook-and-eye man lived in Bolton. A stonecutter in Bolton would have had
difficulty enough transporting his stones over bad country roads as far away
as Pomfret, Scotland, or Norwich, but carting them over the mountain from
East Hartford would have been even more difficult. Furthermore, hook-and-
eye faces that are known to be Buckland's work had tiny eyes and enormous
bulbous noses that were almost caricatures rather than typical of the work we
believed to be the original hook-and-eye man's. Buckland's footstones are
also decidedly different; and, furthermore, all of his typical known stones
were made from red sandstone. Not a single gray schist stone had the enor-
mously enlarged nose found on the stones known to have been carved by
Buckland. So we tentatively eliminated William Buckland, Jr., as the man we
were after.

Next in line was William's brother, Peter Buckland, who also cut grave-
stones and signed his name at least once on sandstone (see Connecticut
Gravestones XIV, Fig. 13) and three times on gray schist. He lies buried in
Manchester, not far from Bolton, so he had to be considered. Peter's known
stones are also somewhat similar to typical hook-and-eye stones, but the style
of his signed stones seemed to us quite distinctive, especially his border panel
and footstones. At this point we felt much confused by our evidence.

A year or so later, driving from Hartford to a medical meeting in Quebec,
we spotted an old graveyard on the roadside in Wilder, Vermont, which is
near the crossing to Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire. And whom
should we meet there? None other than old Hook-and-eye himself. There
he was, sneering at us through his funny faces. We soon began to doubt,
however, that the Vermont cutter could be the same as our Connecticut

314 Connecticut Gravestones

hook-and-eye man, for although we saw some four-leaved clovers, typical
hearts and diamonds, and the same ridiculous crowns, we thought he was
much too far from home, about 160 miles. So we concluded that some Ver-
mont workman had attempted to imitate the master. Besides, rain began to
fall, and we resumed our journey.

Through two following years, good weather and bad, we continued to hunt
gravestones. The winding country lanes, inviting doorways, stone fences,
hundreds of little lakes, and the ubiquitous laurel of the Connecticut
countryside were never without charm. We could not see too much of
Sharon, Gilead, Coventry, the Woodstocks, Old Lyme, and Essex, each with
its graveyard on a hill - the choicest land in town. We shall never forget that
autumn day when we intruded on the old graveyard on the crest of a hill in
Bolton Center, where one could look over numberless hills and valleys far
away to Rhode Island and see nothing but wave upon wave of color. What a
glorious place it would be, we thought, to behold the Resurrection.

For every interesting or pleasant aspect of gravestone hunting there was a
compensating hazard. We soon learned to respect even a single leaf of
poison ivy. We also learned the hard way that woodchuck holes may be dis-
regarded only by those with rubber bones. Snakes inhabit nearly every
country graveyard, but they never bothered us much after our first encounter,
for we always gave any snake the right of way. But these were minor irrita-
tions compared to the gruesome verse that abounds in old graveyards:

All you that read with little care,
And walk away and leave me here;
Should not forget that you must die,
And be intomb'd as well as I.

Meanwhile, with all our theories on the hook-and-eye man upset by our
Vermont discovery, we traced other stonecutters, especially George Gris-
wold, the earliest known stonecutter in the American colonies, with his
simple unornamented stones in Hartford, Windsor, Suffield, Longmeadow,
Westfield, and Northampton. We also enjoyed pursuing Ebenezer Drake,
with his scarecrow designs, and possibly the most fascinating of all Connec-
ticut stone engravers, if only because he varied his designs from year to year.
Always skillful with his chisels, Drake might have become a famous sculptor.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 315

had he not been so thoroughly infatuated with his own brand of surrealism.
He almost seems to have created designs solely for the purpose of keeping
colonial boys and girls out of graveyards at night, for surely nothing in this
world could have been more discouraging to romance than suddenly to en-
counter one of Ebenezer's stony ghosts lighted by a harvest moon. But
nearly everywhere we went, especially around Glastonbury and Wethersfield,
we found old Hook-and-eye with his taunting sneer seeming to defy detec-
tion.

Lacking any definitive evidence from the stones, we came to believe that
probate records offered our only remaining possibility of success.

At first a probate search seemed very simple. One had only to copy names
and dates from hook-and-eye inscriptions and then to search the probate
records of the decedent. In Connecticut the old probate records for nearly
all districts are on file in the State Library in Hartford, well-indexed and
well-preserved, each in its own folder. These include some 6000 estates, all
before 1800, for the Hartford district alone. We quickly realized, however,
that this avenue of research was not as simple as it seemed.

In the first place, many records consist of the decedent's will or bonds of
administration, neither of which reveals the expenses of an estate. And
again, many consist of only inventories and distributions, which though inter-
esting, rarely yield any information on stonecutters. While glancing through
some inventories, we did, however, find items of interest. Ichabod Higgins of
Durham, for example, left some unfinished gravestones in his estate (1758),
so we thus discovered another Connecticut engraver that no historian had
reported. In short, the probate records yielded no quick solution to our
problem.

When a stonecutter's name appears in the probate records, we usually find
it in separate papers called "Accounts of Administration" or "Returns to the
Court," but only about one estate in five includes such papers, so our problem
was at least five times more difficult than we first supposed. We were en-
couraged, though, to find the names of the men who made coffins, and we
learned to our surprise that the leading cabinet makers also spent con-
siderable time making coffins. Even gravediggers' names could be easily
found. Old Uriah Burkit, who was no Dickens character, made his living dig-

316 Connecticut Gravestones

ging graves in Hartford for fifty years. To Uriah each burial was a statistic,
for when he died in 1801 his obituary noted that he had buried 2,245 persons.

The "Accounts of Administration" showed other expenses for funerals.
The drummer boy had to be paid, and mourning gloves purchased by the
dozen. When the widow Grant was buried in 1705, the "6 qts. of Rom for her
funrill" came to ten and six, and this charge was typical of scores of similar
entries. We found one instance where the mourners drank nearly the whole
estate.

Our problem, however, was that even detailed accounts seldom included
the name of the stonecutter, because, as we later discovered, the accounts
were made up fairly soon after the individual's decease, and the estate was
settled long before the gravestone was erected. Sometimes one or more
years elapsed between the funeral and the payment for the gravestone. Only
when a contract for a gravestone was signed or the gravestone actually
delivered could the cost be considered as a legitimate expense. We finally
realized that often the cost of the gravestone was voluntarily contributed by
one or more of the descendants after the estate was settled. On occasion, dis-
agreement about the gravestone prevented timely allowance of the cost. In
South Canterbury, for example, a gravestone dated 1804 bears this note:
"This monument was erected wholly at the expense of Mr. G. Justin Son of
the deceas'd."

The most tantalizing aspect of our probate search was to find administra-
tive accounts with names of creditors but with no indications of the objects of
expenditure. And worse still was occasionally to find the exact cost of the
gravestone but no mention of the engraver's name.

We searched over 350 probate records for the hook-and-eye stones on our
list without finding a single definite clue. We would go to the old graveyard
in Windham, for instance, copy all the names and dates from the hook-and-
eye stones, spend hours examining the corresponding probate records, and
come home with nothing more than a list of suggestive names, none of which
meant much. We did this for town after town.

We frequently cursed the old probate judges and clerks for keeping such
miserable records. They would write the administrator's receipts in one
column and expenses in another, accounting for every shilling without divulg-

The Hook-and-Eye Man 317

ing one bit of useful information.

Making little progress in our search, we next made a list of creditors of
Hartford estates for matching against the creditors from Tolland estates,
hoping that any name common to both would be the name of the hook-and-
eye man who made the gravestones for all the estates. Here again, we met
disappointments. Joel White was a name common to both groups, but he
turned out to be a money-lender. William Ellery turned out to be Hartford's
first postmaster, who also kept a general store. Elisha Burnham happened to
be a blacksmith who was popular throughout both counties. We found that
certain men in every community were creditors of nearly everyone for miles
around.

We continued until we had examined the estates for all of our hook-and-
eye stones in Hartford, Tolland, and Windham counties, and we were no
nearer to a solution that when we began. We still had some Colchester es-
tates to examine, but we were leaving town the next morning on vacation,
and it hardly seemed worth while to begin them.

Suddenly we had a break. Colchester had had a judge who knew how to
run a court. He had saved every scrap of paper. We found scores of in-
dividual receipts signed by every person to whom the estate had paid money.
We had about twenty-five Colchester estates to investigate, each with five to
thirty slips of paper, and we had to read every word. But it was closing time
for the library, and the young lady in charge, though too polite to tell us to
leave, began bustling around the room, shutting doors and windows, putting
away books from our table, turning out lights, and dropping other forceful
hints. Yet we felt driven to finish those Colchester records before leaving on
vacation. Noting our dejected expressions, James Brewster, the State
Librarian, gave us permission, despite the rules, to return to the library that
night to examine the records.

It was a memorable night for us - that night of July 30, 1950. Alone in the
eerie basement where the old probate records are kept, we felt squeamish in
our task of tracking down those eighteenth-century ghosts. We had already
learned to decipher most of the handwriting of the period, but even so, we
found many receipts written and signed by tradesmen who seemed never to
have grasped a quill before. The hours went by and our pile of unexamined

318 Connecticut Gravestones

records went down, but long after ten o'clock we were suddenly electrified by
the discovery of a single scrap of paper with an item that seemed almost too
good to be real. This precious, fragile document was among the records of
the estate of Isaac Bigelow, who died on September 11, 1751:

Colchestg- March y^ 11^^ 1752

Then rec of Isaac Biglow Twenty four

pound in bills of Credit, for wich

I promis to DeUver 3 pare of Grave

Stones at or before y^ first Day of may

next after y^ Date herof

at my DweUing hous in bolton

Rec as aforsd I say

p me Gershom Bartlet

The estate of Abner Kellogg (Colchester, 1755) proved an anti-climax,
with another receipt signed by Gershom Bartlett, but we needed no addi-
tional proof. We had found our man.

To us Gershom Bartlett was the most elusive carver of the eighteenth cen-
tury, and we had caught him with his stone hammers, his chisels, and his
leather apron. He lived in Bolton, right where the quarries are. The
evidence was perfect!

Now who was Gershom Bartlett? When and where was he born? What
became of him after 1772, when he stopped carving gravestones in Connec-
ticut? When and where did he die?

Once we had his name, we had new leads into the old records and new
leads through the old graveyards.

The old Bolton church records, which have been published by the Connec-
ticut Historical Society, show that Bartlett was born in 1723, the son of
Samuel and Sarah Bartlett. Samuel had migrated from Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, and was admitted to the church in 1725. Gershom had many
children by his wife, Margaret, but there is no record of his death in Bolton.

The original Bolton land records also provided an important clue. An
entry dated June 20, 1747, shows that John Ellsworth bought ten acres of
land in Bolton from "Garshem Bartlett of Windsor." Since we knew that
Bartlett had lived for a good part of his life in Bolton, this reference to
Windsor came as a distinct surprise and opened up a new line of research.

The Hook-and-Eye Man

319

Stiles's History and Genealogy of Ancient Windsor confirmed Bartlett's
residence in Windsor, because his son Joseph was born there in January,
1749, and his daughter Lucy in November, 1750.

The association with Windsor led back to the graveyards, since it
reminded us of fourteen red sandstones which we had previously classified as
"modified hook-and-eye," but which we had been unable to assign to any
known stonecutter of that period. Of these stones, four are in South Windsor
(originally part of East Windsor), four in Enfield (Figs. 1 and 6), four in El-
lington (Figs. 4 and 7), and one in Somers (Fig. 5), all on the east side of the
Connecticut River. There are no similar stones in Windsor proper or
anywhere west of the river except a pair of stones for Mrs. Abiah Kent in Suf-
field dated 1748 (Figs. 2 and 3).

Fig. 3 Mrs. Abiah Kent 1748. Footstone. Suffield.

320

Connecticut Gravestones

We became convinced that these little gravestones were Bartlett's work,
and our belief grew firmer when, on checking our files, we found that the es-
tate of Abraham Pease of Enfield (Fig. 1) had paid "Garshem Butlit ... 8
pounds" in 1750. Although this probate record does not specifically mention
a gravestone and the amount is considerably more than was usually paid for
gravestones at that time, we can be sure that Bartlett, the stonecutter, was a
creditor of the Pease estate. The stone for Pease differs from the common
Bolton hook-and-eye stones, being a velvety smooth red sandstone less than
two feet high and having hollowed eyes and a rather pleasing tear-drop bor-
der. We later noticed that hollowed eyes and tear-drop borders appear on
several early grey schist stones from the Bolton quarries. Furthermore, the
Pease stone has the typical crown, raised eyebrows, turned-down mouth, and
teeth at the bottom of the skull, all common characteristics of Bartlett's Bol-
ton stones.

eve X12S A-t5:p!
. , ini' 1 o h n 2^n#*

Fig. 4 John Barret 1750. Ellington. Photograph by James Slater.

The Hook-and-Eye Man

321

The tear-drop border, representing grapes or leaves growing on a vine,
then took on added significance, because this feature helped attribute to
Bartlett five more stones, including markers for Hannah Parce (1749) and
Ebenezer Chapin (1751) (Fig. 6) in the same graveyard. These early stones
all show typical Bartlett features, and four of them show a sixteenth-century
numeral 5, which became our principal means to identify more of Bartlett's
early work. No other eighteenth-century stonecutter made this unusual 5.

^Td

■^*'. - :>^'«-AA.,.«-?m.*>-

Fig. 5 Jacob Ward 1748. East Burying Ground, Somers.

322 Connecticut Gravestones

Having found that Bartlett's early stones could show considerable varia-
tions in border designs, we then returned to Somers to review one of the ear-
Hest stones there, the marker for Jacob Ward (Fig. 5), who died in 1748. On
Ward's stone was the imperfect pinwheel for a finial, typical crown, raised
eyebrows, misplaced teeth, unclosed small a's, space-filling serpent, as well as
the typical and distinctive numeral 5. We concluded that Bartlett was the car-
ver, despite some variations, such as the slit-like eyes, angular nose, and
crude, elementary wings, but the most interesting variation was the border,
which showed an undulating climbing vine adorned with simple, pointed
philodendron leaves, noticeably asymmetrical.

The border on the Ward stone became in turn the clue that led us to find-
ing the first stones that Bartlett ever made, at least the first of all his stones
still standing in place. Two are in Ellington, both dated 1747. We can see at
a glance that Sarah Moulton's and John Bingham's (Fig. 7) stones were cut
by the same carver who made the Ward stone because the borders are practi-
cally identical. Other similarities include square shoulders and the absence
of a mouth. The only differences are in the lack of teeth and in the crowns,
the two early stones having crowns with three tufts, one of them peaked.

We thus found that in his early days Bartlett was not a hook-and-eye man
at all. His squinted eyes, joined to an angular elementary nose, though lend-
ing an amusing, inquisitive expression to the face, cannot be classified as a
hook-and-eye design. And his earliest stone, for Deborah Ellsworth, who
died in East Windsor in 1747, shows no face at all, but a meaningless (to us)
pair of "cucumbers" and some six-pointed stars, indicating that Bartlett had
been trying a compass to lay out his work.

Stones for the two Barret boys (Fig. 4), who died in Ellington during a
dysentery epidemic in September 1750, show Bartlett's variations in style,
even for stones made at the same time. One stone shows a turned-down
mouth, three tiers of wings, perpendicular numeral I's, and a tear-drop bor-
der. The other shows no mouth, a tier and a half of wings, a numeral 1 is
slanted and hooked, and - most interesting of all ~ a border which later
evolved into the pattern of bisected mushrooms on an undulating stalk that
Bartlett adopted for nearly the remainder of his life.

We searched for every kind of Bartlett record, published or unpublished,

The Hook-and-Eye Man

323

while he Hved in Windsor, but except for references to the births of his first
two children, we had little luck. We had little prospect of finding him for,
after all, stonecutting was not a trade commanding great respect, and besides,
Bartlett was only a novice at this period of his life. Then, while engaged on
another project, we came across the manuscript account book of Ebenezer
Grant of East Windsor. Grant's house still stands, a lovely colonial mansion
on "The Street" in what is now South Windsor, north of the old Edwards
burial ground. Grant kept a general store where he traded assorted goods,
including cloth, salt and rum; and many a neighbor crossed a page of history
merely by charging a purchase in Grant's store.

p**\'

mWxe Lies \Wf

Fig. 6 Ebenezer Chapin 1751. Enfield. Photograph by James Slater.

324

Connecticut Gravestones

Ir 1 ears ^^7 raarf jXf -^

Fig. 7 John Bingham 1747. Ellington. Photograph by James Slater.

On the debit side of Grant's account book are some entries made when
Bartlett was a boy of twenty years:

Gershom Bartlett Dr

1743 Octobr 5

to three qrts Rum 4s/2d pr quart

0012 06

1745 April 4

to 2 Gallons Rum 18s/prG

&1/2 quire Paper

0119 00

" 15

to pint Rum 2s/4d:

23rd from Day Book 72s

0314 00

May 13

to 4 yrds Green Tammy 10s per yrd.

pd Sugr 3s/

02 03 00

May 28

yrd fme Holld for Wallis 23s

0103 00

From the Windsor vital records we can deduce that Bartlett married
around April or May in 1748, so it was of interest to see what he might have
bought for his bride on that occasion. The only entries for 1748 are as fol-
lows:

The Hook-and-Eye Man 325

1748 May 21

to Galln Rum 45s/2pd Sugr at 6s/

0217 00

July 28

to half pint Rum 3s/

29th Galln molas 28s/

OHIO

Sept 29

to Bushel Salt 46s/

02 06 00

October 14

to molas 6/6 & pound Sugr 5/6

0012 00

The price of rum went from eighteen shillings to forty-five shillings be-
tween 1743 and 1748, or else Gershom was treating his bride to better
quality. Numerous other entries show Bartlett buying salt, sugar, molasses
and "sundries," and at one time his debt to Grant was as much as £22-02-02.

The opposite side of the ledger is also revealing. In the first place, the
rum that Bartlett bought on October 5, 1743, was not paid for until February
24, 1745, although it cost a mere twelve shillings. We might suppose that he
was nearly broke, except that it was not unusual for even the well-to-do to let
their accounts stand unpaid for years, only to be settled in full at a later date
by barter or someone else's note. Cash was scarce, but trade nevertheless
went on. The fact that Bartlett was not a wealthy man, however, is confirmed
by other entries:

Gershom Bartlett pr Contra is Cr[edited]

1748 July 28

Reed 2 Days to mow as by Day Book

0112 00

1749 July 11

By Day to take up Oats

0100 00

July 19

By three Days to mow and be kept

night and Day at 18s

02 14 00

1750 June 12

Reed a Day to mow. Come late

00 16 00

July 27

Reed a day to mow

00 18 00

Septr 10th

Reed a day to thresh flax

00 16 00

Rub Stone las July

00 05 00

Apparently Bartlett lived far enough away from Grant to find it con-
venient to stay overnight at least on one occasion in July, 1749; but he still
lived within Windsor bounds, because his children were officially listed as
having been born there. We can conclude, therefore, that he lived east of the
river (thirteen of his fourteen early stones are there) and that his home was
probably far to the east of Grant's, probably in that part of Windsor, East
Parish, which became the farming town of Ellington.

Ebenezer Grant's account book is still more interesting for other entries,
which at first sight do not concern Bartlett but which may throw light on

326 Connecticut Gravestones

some of his early work. Among the latest entries are transactions with
Joseph Johnson, who on two occasions was paid for gravestones for members
of Grant's family. The Johnsons were a family of skillful stonecutters in Mid-
dletown, and Joseph was, in my opinion, the most versatile and accomplished
stonecutter in Connecticut in colonial times. His carvings, easily identified
by their excellence in workmanship, may be found in almost every old town
in the Connecticut Valley south of Springfield. Grant's account book
definitely places Johnson in South Windsor in the 1740s, which explains the
presence of so many of his stones there and in Windsor, East Hartford, and
Glastonbury. It also explains why all the Joseph Johnson stones of this
period were carved on smooth Windsor sandstone.

No direct evidence of his acquaintance with Gershom Bartlett has so far
come to light, but Johnson's influence on Bartlett's early work cannot be
doubted. The best of Bartlett's early stones, the marker for Mrs. Abiah Kent
(Fig. 2), who died in Suffield on February 23, 1748, shows carefully cut, even
letters, with serifs, fancy capital H's and A's, and other imitations of Johnson,
such as a Johnson crown and a time-consuming stippled background. In fact,
Mrs. Kent's gravestone was so well made that at one time we tentatively at-
tributed it to Joseph Johnson, but we came to believe that Bartlett cut the
stone during his formative years when he either worked as an apprentice to
Johnson or when he needed patterns to follow.

The last purchase that Bartlett made from Grant was dated May 18, 1751,
which is near the date of his last red Windsor sandstone. He soon moved to
Bolton, because his next child, Margaret, was born there on September 6,
1752; and practically all hook-and-eye stones for the next twenty years came
from the Bolton quarries.* Determining the exact date of his move to Bolton
was a problem. Dates on gravestones are not reliable, inasmuch as the
stones were frequently made much later than their inscribed dates. For ex-
ample, stones from Bolton quarries often carry dates in the 1740s, at a time
when Bartlett is known to have lived in Windsor. The texture of the stones is
more helpful. The last of his smooth, red Windsor sandstones is dated
March 31, 1751, whereas his stones from grey Bolton schist increase in num-

* Stones of the Bartlett type occur in some numbers in the old Plainfield and adjacent burying
grounds carved on an easily eroded light tan-colored stone.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 327

ber during and after 1751. Bolton land records give another clue. A deed
dated December 27, 1750, mentions "Garshem Bartlett of Windsor," whereas
another dated October 7, 1751, mentions "Garshem Bartlett of Bolton." We
can suppose that he moved to Bolton in the summer of 1751.

Just as carving gravestones did not fully occupy his time in Windsor, so he
had time in Bolton for other pursuits. Like many of his contemporaries, he
tried his hand at real estate speculation and enjoyed beginner's luck. On
August 27, 1753, he bought twenty-four acres of land "on East Side of ye
Great River" within Windsor bounds from William Phelps for £75, and he
then sold the same land on May 12, 1756, to Salvanus Willobee for £115. As
time went on, however, he was less fortunate. In 1764 he paid £100 for a
"Sartain tract of Land in Coventry . . . with a Grist-Mill Standing thereon, the
whole of ye Land where the Grist-mill stands and ye whole of ye Land that is
Ponded by the said Mill Dam and Liberty of a Convenient pent Road from
Sd Gristmill Southerly to ye highway."

Possibly he considered becoming a miller, especially since he raised "corn
grain flax and oats" on his Bolton farm, but the gristmill venture did not
succeed, because two years later he sold out for £85. Altogether he bought
about eighteen parcels in different parts of Bolton, yet when the time came
for him to sell his land and buildings, the £369 which he received was con-
siderably less than his original costs. Despite his losses he still was con-
sidered financially respectable, for at one time he was tax collector in Bolton
and collected part of the town dues in 1763.

Bartlett might have done some work with wood, but our evidence on this
score is all indirect. His son Joseph, when about twenty-one, "builded a small
house" in Bolton, so Gershom probably knew the tricks of carpentry. In 1754
he bought 1500 four-penny nails from a store in Coventry; also, the land he
sold in 1772 had buildings on it which did not come with his purchase. His
largest plot in Bolton was about fifty acres of none-too-fertile land running
slightly northeast from "a Great Rock on the Top of the Ledges," which still
exists as a landmark a few rods north of the famous notch in the mountain.

All this time Bartlett's production of gravestones was increasing, although
his resulting prosperity barely kept pace with the increase in his family. In
addition to his two children born in Windsor, eleven more were born in Bol-

328

Connecticut Gravestones

ton between 1752 and 1771. On January 24, 1754, John Potwine of
"Covintrey" sold Bartlett some paper, pins, and "a primer (costing) 0/4/6."
Four Bartlett children died in Bolton, all when very young.

A list of persons for whom Bartlett made gravestones during his Bolton
period would make a good "Who Was Who in Colonial Connecticut." For
examples, there were the Reverend Samuel Tudor of East Windsor, the
Reverend Thomas White of Bolton, the Reverend Nathaniel Huntington of
Ellington, and the Reverend Ephraim Avery of Brooklyn; also Colonel John
Whiting of West Hartford, Captain Joseph Hooker of Farmington, Captain
John Manning of Scotland (Fig, 8), and a host of other captains and
lieutenants. The list of doctors includes Dr. Jonathan Marsh of Norwich, Dr.
Thomas Mather of Farmington, Dr. John Wells of Wethersfield, and Dr.
Jonathan Bull of Hartford. Mrs. Esther Edwards (mother of Jonathan Ed-
wards) of East Windsor, Thomas Welles, Esquire, of Glastonbury, Colonel
Israel Putnam's sons of Brooklyn, Benoni Trumbull of Gilead, and David
Luce of Scotland all had stones by Bartlett.

A' lolm Mnhnms ':.>,^

fen-) itltetb^fcSiEBfeliS-

ifxhr«S^

.-»a»-i^ -f-

Fig. 8 Capt. John Manning 1760. Scotland. Photograph by James Slater.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 329

As every Dartmouth man well knows, "Eleazar Wheelock was a very pious
man." He lived in that part of Lebanon called "The Crank" (now Columbia),
where he kept a school for educating Indians. His most famous pupil,
Samuel Occum, was converted from his primitive beliefs to become, at least
temporarily, "a saved heathen." In 1766 Occum went to England to raise
funds for a new college, and there he proved his conversion to the white
man's ways by organizing a drive which yielded a handsome sum of money.
In this effort he was aided by the Earl of Dartmouth, and in grateful
remembrance, Eleazar Wheelock named the new college after the good earl.
The point of this digression is that the illustrious Eleazar Wheelock must
have known Gershom Bartlett.

In Hebron we found a miniature hook-and-eye stone for Mercy Wheelock,
who died in 1758; and a double hook-and-eye stone in Columbia marks the
graves of two more of Eleazar's children, both named Eleazar and both dying
under three months of age.

More interesting still is the Columbia gravestone for "Miss Sarah the wife
of ye Revd Eleazar Wheelock who died Novr, 13, A:D: 1746." She was the
daughter of John Davenport of Stamford and was earlier married to William
Maltby, by whom she had a son, John, who later became the first to be buried
in the Dartmouth graveyard in Hanover, New Hampshire. The interest in
Sarah Wheelock's gravestone, other than its elaborate coat-of-arms and fine
inscription, which could not be Bartlett's work, is the stone itself, which came
from Bartlett's quarry. The footstone, however, is certainly Bartlett's, being
engraved with diamond shapes, a Bartlett trademark.

As soon as we had identified Gershom Bartlett, we made a triumphant
call to Kendall Hayward, another gravestone sleuth who had been as an-
noyed by the hook-and-eye mystery as we had. Hayward had visited us to
swap photographs and yarns about our various discoveries. He was par-
ticularly interested in the Collins family, starting with Benjamin, one of the
finest early stonecutters, and one who had been both proud and obliging
enough to place an occasional signature on his work. At that time Hayward
was investigating Zenibbabel Collins, who, after discovering that Vermont
marble was a superior medium for inscriptions, settled in Shaftsbury, where
he carved some of the most beautiful of all New England gravestones.

330

Connecticut Gravestones

Having just returned from tracing Zerubbabel in Vermont, Hayward told us
that he had seen some hook-and-eye stones near White River Junction. We
immediately recalled the stones that we had seen in Wilder, so the itinerary
of our vacation to Vermont was decided at that moment (Fig. 9).

COMNECTJCUT RIVER

E.Ryegate /-■

Wells River

Newbury

Bradford

■ Haverhill

Piermont

■ Orford

E.Thetford
POMPANOOSUC

Lyme

Norwich

Wilder ^
Hartford (

White River
Junction

Hanover
Lebanon

m Plainfield

Windsor ■

Fig. 9 Dr. Caulfield's journey in search of the Hook-and-Eye Man.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 331

During the summer Dan Harvey, a colleague of mine at the Hartford
Hospital, had invited us to visit in South Strafford. The night before our
departure, Dan had dropped in to give us directions for finding their house.
He also told us that a friend of his at the Hitchcock Clinic in Hanover had
just shown him an old graveyard that had been long deserted and was not
well known. We always followed leads like this and usually found why they
were deserted; they usually contained nothing but urn-and-willow designs,
the most uninteresting gravestones ever carved. Nevertheless, we promised
Dan that we would take a look at his new discovery, which, he told us, was on
top of a hill at the end of a country road across a bridge near some railroad
tracks somewhere in Vermont. "You just can't miss it," Dan told us, and we
knew what he meant: it would be hard to find.

Winding up the Connecticut River valley past Brattleboro and Putney,
finding nothing exciting, we stopped at Ascutney for lunch in an old
graveyard, where we noticed two designs new to us, which, for want of better
names, we called "the fat-faced angel" and "the sloe-eyed guy." In the church-
yard of the Old South Church in Windsor we picked up Bartlett's trail, five or
six stones, including a small black soapstone for Rachel Abbot, who died in
1774, This stone, without question by Gershom Bartlett, showed not a letter
or figure that was not duplicated on his Connecticut stones.

Crossing the river, we proceeded north to Plainfield, where we found
more Bartlett stones, one for Persis Freeman dated 1793. The date made
Bartlett seventy years old and still cutting gravestones. Then to Lebanon,
and across the bridge to White River Junction, with a side trip to Hartford,
which, like numerous other towns in the region, contained many stones for
the Bartlett family, but none carved by Gershom Bartlett. We then
proceeded to Wilder, where we had found hook-and-eye stones in 1948.
Wilder had over a dozen early Bartlett stones, dating from 1775. About five
o'clock in Norwich, we found one hook-and-eye design on a poor grade of
Vermont marble, though most of the stones were various attractive red
slates, dating between 1775 and 1791. We also found gravestones which sug-
gested a dysentery epidemic among the children during the autumn of 1775.

Enough daylight remained on our reaching Hanover, just across the river,
for us to see that Gershom Bartlett was not only the earliest stonecutter in

332 Connecticut Gravestones

the region, but that he had been successful, just as in Connecticut, in building
a large trade. From the perpendicular 7's and bisected mushroom borders,
we could tell that he had made the tablestone for the Reverend John Maltby,
step-son of his friend Eleazar Wheelock. Nor was there much doubt that
Bartlett had joined the migration from Connecticut to New Hampshire and
Vermont. Convinced that somewhere in the upper Connecticut valley he had
lived and died, we retired for the night, anticipating some fruitful exploration
on the following day.

It was crisp and cold as we started up the east bank of the river the next
day on a clear September morning. It was a New England autumn day in all
its glory. It seemed good just to be alive. We picked up the Bartlett trail
again in Lyme and in various small graveyards along the road to Orford. On
some stones he showed causes of death, which he had seldom done in Bolton.
Two stones in particular, those for Mrs. Abigail Barron and Mrs. Lydia
Dewey (Fig. 10), aroused our interest, as we had long been studying maternal
mortality in colonial times. One stone was inscribed: "My sister and I in
childbed died and here we lie both side by side." One sister was twenty-one
years old and the other twenty-three. We took photographs of these for our
collection.

At Peirmont were some peg-shaped stones and another stone of white
marble dated 1792. We noticed that throughout the region most of the lead-
ing military men had Bartlett stones. In Orford we had seen a stone for Cap-
tain Jeremiah Post, who fell at Bennington; there was one for Colonel Bailey
in Peirmont dated 1794; and in the next town, Haverhill, noted for its hand-
some village green, there was a large double stone for Colonel and Mrs.
Timothy Bedel.

We paused in many places to admire the ox-bows in the river and the
foliage on the far side, but having lost the trail, we crossed at Wells River and
drove on as far as East Rygate. We later concluded that Rygate Corners, two
miles inland, is the northernmost point for Bartlett stones. Near noon we
turned south to Newbury and had lunch in the Ox-Bow Graveyard, said to be
the oldest and most beautiful in all Vermont. There Bartlett carved a double
stone for two of the three wives of Captain Robert Johnson, a military hero
of the town.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 333

1 "( I

Fig. 10 Lydia Dewey 1784. Orford, Vt.

Our next stop was in Bradford, where Bartlett stones increased in number.
He surely had an eye for attractive material. The jet-black soapstones have
so well retained their sharp inscriptions that they look as if they were made
yesterday, although the red and black slates are often badly shaled. Vermont
must have invigorated Bartlett as he advanced in years, because he began to
use various sizes and shapes of stones, and he even made many scalloped bor-
ders. He showed more originality as he grew older than he had shown at the
peak of his career in Bolton, though he retained the perpendicular descender
on the numeral 7, which appears on all of his Bolton stones.

In the old graveyard in East Thetford were more Bartlett stones, one
dated 1796, when he would have been seventy-three years old, but his hand
was as steady as ever. One badly shaled stone has particular interest: "In

Memory of M*^ Stephen ar y^ 3" of Middletown [who] was Killed by

[breaking up] a Jam of Logs. April 1793." This stone commemorated
Stephen Miller, whose estate was settled in Middletown, Connecticut, in
1796, and among the creditors was Gershom Bartlett with a charge of three
pounds for that gravestone. The selfsame identity of the Vermont and Con-
necticut hook-and-eye men is clearly established by Miller's gravestone.

334 Connecticut Gravestones

Near sundown we left East Thetford, with one more stop to make before
we were expected at the Harveys'. We had promised Dan that we would visit
his deserted graveyard in Pompanoosuc, and when he had said that very few
people knew its location, he spoke the truth. After going off course, our
second trial took us over a covered bridge and up a steep hill where the road
turned to make a sharp angle. We took this hair-pin turn in high gear, and
our luck ran with us, because the car stalled within inches of a gully. Within
the week since Dan's visit, a flood had washed out gullies on both sides be-
tween two and three feet deep. So we panted up the remainder of the hill,
only to find the graveyard shoulder high with brush. It was near darkness,
but we were determined to be able to report to Dan that we had given the
place a look. The snakes had gone to bed, but woodchuck holes
honeycombed the ground, and we stumbled repeatedly as we peered from
stone to stone.

To our great surprise, we found over twenty-five Bartlett stones in Pom-
panoosuc, many of them for members of the Fitch, Kimball, Spaulding, and
Waterman families, all eastern Connecticut names. In the center of the yard
were many stones for the Bartlett family, all difficult to read in the darkness.
One white stone suddenly caught my eye. I let out a yell that echoed back
from across the Connecticut River in the distance. Nothing like it had been
heard in that region since the St. Francis Indians raided Royalton, nearly 200
years before. The name on the stone was GERSHOM BARTLET (Fig. 12).

We could barely read the recently erected white marker for "Gershom
Bartlet Pvt. Olcott's Regt. Vt. Mil. Rev. War December 23, 1798." The end
of the trail. Fully satisfied but exhausted, we found our way up to South Straf-
ford and the Harveys.

Up early the next morning, we could not wait to return to Pompanoosuc.
Driving back, we imagined that along that very road old Gershom Bartlett
and his eldest sons had marched with their hastily aroused Norwich neigh-
bors "to assist the Strafford people in their retreat" in August and September,
1777, and again in 1780 when "the enemy came to Royalton." In charge of
that small band of citizen soldiers was Colonel Peter Olcott, Bartlett's old
friend and neighbor from home in Bolton.

In the morning the graveyard was easier to find. By daylight the gullies

The Hook-and-Eye Man 335

looked even more formidable than they had in darkness. The graveyard
looked more unkept, with its broken-down fence, overturned stones, weeds
and bushes, and with a forest obstructing the view. We could easily imagine,
nevertheless, the beautiful spot that it must have been in the old days,
situated on a high crest overlooking the Oompomponoosuc and Connecticut
Rivers. We found Bartlett's original gravestone (Fig. 11), its surface badly
shaled with only fragments of the original lettering still clear. What irony!
This man who had spent at least fifty of his seventy-five years taking extraordi-
nary care to see that his contemporaries had enduring monuments on their
graves had for himself a stone which in a very few years would be but a heap
of dust.

We found other interesting surprises in the Pompanoosuc graveyard.
Bartlett had two wives, Margaret, who died in 1778, and Hannah, who sur-
vived him. Margaret's stone is puzzling. We had seen many similar stones in
Vermont and decided they were cut by someone closely associated with
Bartlett, perhaps an apprentice or, more likely, a son. The skull and wings
bear no resemblance to the hook-and-eye stones, yet there were snails, four-
leaved clovers, perpendicular sevens, typical borders, and most important,
the completely unmistakable Gershom Bartlett footstone with its diamonds.
We came to suppose that the old man himself had cut the borders and the in-
scription after a son or other associate had cut the skull and wings, though we
felt less certain about our attribution of this important Bartlett stone than
about any other that he had ever made.

The inscriptions especially surprised us. "In Memory of Mrs. Margret wife
of DD Gershom Bartlet," and "In Memory of Hannah, wife of Gershom
Bartlet DD." We later learned more about him from Vermont records, many
supplied by Arthur Chivers, who was then working on the history of the
Dartmouth graveyard. We learned that Bartlett had subscribed to the first
Dartmouth College Fund about 1770; he was a pioneer settler in Norwich
(Pompanoosuc was then a district of Norwich), an official fence viewer, also
a member of the committee for laying out roads to the meeting house.
Numerous Vermont records tell of his service in the militia during the
Revolutionary War and earlier service in 1757 in the French and Indian
Wars.

336

Connecticut Gravestones

Fig. 11 Gershom Bartlett 1798. Pompanoosuc, Vt.

Fig. 12 Gershom Bartlet 1798. Pompanoosuc, Vt. New marker.

The Hook-and-Eye Man 337

But how did he get his doctorate in divinity? Throughout his life he had
preached sermons on stones, frequently using scriptural quotations, but his
name is not officially listed as a graduate of Dartmouth or of any other
American college existing at that time. His probate papers, now in
Woodstock, Vermont, revealed many facts, among them the fact that he lived
on the banks of the Oompompanoosuc River not far from the old graveyard;
that he died intestate and left some household furniture including a looking-
glass valued at twenty-one cents and a tea set valued at seventy-one cents.
We can also note the significant fact that he left not a single book, suggesting
that he had no formal education.

We ended by believing that Bartlett's degree was justly earned, if not by
scholarship, then by his contributions to early American art, recognized by
his life-long friend, Eleazer Wheelock, scholar and founder of Darmouth Col-
lege, Perhaps Bartlett assisted Wheelock in transporting from Connecticut
those 500 gallons of New England rum, now celebrated in Dartmouth song,
and perhaps his degree in divinity was granted, though not recorded, on the
happy occasion of its arrival.

338

Index

Boldface page numbers indicate illustrated gravestones.

Addams, Joseph, 103, 104

Alger, John, Jr., 50

Allen, John B., 147

Allyn, John, 43, 45, 49

Arnold, Elisabath, 196, 200

Ayer, Captain Samuel, 176, 178, 185

Backus, Ebenezer, 110, 113

Backus, Elizabeth, 154, 155

Baker, Jacob, 131, 132

Barber, Thomas, 24, 25

Barret, John, 320, 322

Bartlett, Gershom, 5, 48, 97, 109, 110, 157,

206, 207, 210, 220, 221, 229, 232, 244, 246,

247, 248, 249, 251, 255, 256, 259, 318-337,

336

Bat, The, 6, 101-108

Belcher, WilUam, 128, 130, 131

Belding, Jonathan, 69, 71

Bennington, Vt., 137, 138

Bennitt, Lydia, 139

Berlin, 74

Bigelow, Timothy, 79, 81

Bingham, John, 322, 324

Bingham, Samuel, 247

Bingham, Thomas, 277, 284, 285, 293

Bishop, Sarah, 156

Bissell, Ame, 42

Bissell, Captain John, 263

Bliss, John, 44, 46, 48

Bloomfield, 32, 33, 105

Bolton, 231

Brainod, Caleb, 62

Brewer, Daniel, 56

Brooklyn, 112

Brown, Peter, 11

Brown, Thomas, 147

Buckland family, 97, 157, 205-226, 236

Buckland, Hannah, 207, 209, 212, 214

Buckland, Peter, 82, 142-144, 147, 205, 214,

218-226, 230, 241, 313

Buckland, Sergeant William, 212, 215

Buckland, William, 7

Buckland, William, Jr., 205-219, 218, 224,

313

Buel, Elizabeth, 285, 286

Buel, Mercy, 14, 15

Burnham, Phenehas, 224, 225

Butler, Benjamin, 120, 124

Chandler, Daniel, 97, 142, 206

Chapin, Ebenezer, 321, 323

Chapman, Henry, 145

Chapman, Mary, 50, 51

Chapman, Simon, Jr., 106, 107, 108

Clap child, 290

Clap, Mary, 277, 291

Clark, Beulah, 279

Clark, Enos, 140

Clinton, 63, 64

Cochran, Mary, 135, 138

Cole, Jonathan, 207, 211, 212, 215

Collins family, 129-140, 309

"Collins Master", 271, 272, 274

Collins, AUce, 68

Collins, Benjamin, 3, 129-135, 136, 245, 249,

259, 271, 272, 293, 307, 329

Collins, Edward, 139

Collins, Julius, 133-134, 245, 246, 249, 252,

259

Collins, Zerubbabel, 7, 135-139, 260, 329

Colrain, Mass., 239

Columbia, 136, 139

Coventry, 117, 242, 246, 257, 259, 263

Cromwell, 58, 66, 78

Crosby, WUliam, 82, 224, 225, 226

Curtice, Richard, 133, 134

Cushman, Thomas, 281

Cushman, Timothy A., 117, 118

Darley, A. and J., 147

Dewey, Lydia, 332, 333

Dolph, Charles 141-151, 225

Drake family, 227

Drake, Ebenezer, 6, 7, 38, 39-49, 235, 236,

241, 256, 314

339

Drake, Nathaniel, 241
Drake, Nathaniel, Jr., 49
Drake, Silas, 49, 236, 241
Dwight, John, 151

East Hartford, 71, 100, 123, 209, 211, 214,

215, 223, 225

Easton, James, 71, 86

Edwards, John, 56

Eells, Sybil, 221, 222

Ela, Israel, 179, 180, 182

Ellington, 320, 324

Ely, Ensn. John, 97, 98

Enas, Hannah, 108, 110, 112

Enfield, 68, 310, 323

Farnsworth, Mary, 11, 15
Fellows, Isaac, 214, 217
Fitch, Jabez, 299
Fitch, James, 287, 288, 289
Fitch, Rachil, 281, 282
Forbes, James, 206
Francis, Elizabeth, 6, 26, 27
Franklin, 164
Freeman, Ichabod, 258
Fuller, Hannah, 195, 196
Fuller, John, 195, 197
Fuller, Lucy, 195, 198
Fuller, Lydia, 194

Gains, Sarah, 210, 212, 213

Gay, Lydia, 106, 107

Gibbs, 15, 37

Giddings, Thomas, 30

Gill, Ebenezer, 37

Gill, John, 6, 26, 37

Glastonbury, 21, 55, 90, 219, 222

Glastonbury Lady, The, 51-57

Gleason, Joseph, 81, 82

Gold, Thomas, 34

Granger, Robert, 105, 106

Grant, Abiel, 38, 39, 41, 43, 49

Grant, Ann and Eunice, 93, 94

Grant, Tryphena, 41

Griffin, Chloe and son, 118

Griggs, Solomon, 191

Griswold, George, 8, 9-16, 17, 37, 91, 128,

141, 157, 314

Griswold, Matthew, Jr., 15, 16
Griswold, Susannah, 281, 283, 284
Groton, 161

Hale, Gideon, 89, 97

Hall, Captain Daniel, 145, 147, 150

Hammond, Josiah, 239, 240

Hampton, 118, 124, 188, 190, 194, 196, 197,

198, 233

Harris, Zipporah, 16

Hartford, 76, 226, 228

Hartshorn, Charles, 186

Hartshorn, John, 165-188, 227, 245, 260, 269,

274, 275, 280, 308

Hartshorn, John, Jr., 175, 176, 179, 185

Hartshorn, Jonathan, 186

Hartshorn, Stephen, 186

Hartshorne, John, Jr., 177

Haskins, Aaron, 126, 140, 241

Haverhill, Mass., 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,

181, 182

Hayden, Ezra, 92

Hayden, Isaac, 92

Hebron, 133

Hempstead, John, 182

Hempstead, Joshua, 27, 56, 57, 69, 146,

165-188, 230, 308

Hendee, Asa, 257

Higgins, Ichabod, 315

Hills, Jonathan, 223

Holbrook, Appleton, 193

Holland, William, 206

Holt, Abigail, 188, 189

Hook-and-Eye Man, 5, 311-337

Hook-and-eye, 97

Hooker, Mary, 76, 77, 86

House, Deacon Daniel, 218, 219

Howard, Lucy, 120, 124

Hubbel, Mehetable, 135, 137

Hubbert, Sargt. John, 33

Huit, Reverend Ephraim, 8, 9, 15, 37

Hunt, Hannah, 246, 248

Huntington, Captain Thomas, 288

Huntington, John, 126

Hurlbut, Lieut. John, 120, 123, 125

Hutchinson child, 282, 297, 300

Hutchinson, Mindwell, 273, 274, 275, 276,

282,308

340

Johnson family, 256

Johnson, Joseph, 6, 91-100, 95, 142, 157, 326

Johnson, Joseph I, 206

Johnson, Lemuel, 77, 78

Johnson, Stephen, 75

Johnson, Thomas, 30, 37, 57

Johnson, Thomas family, 146

Johnson, Thomas I, 59-65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74,

75, 78, 93, 96, 100, 102, 104, 201

Johnson, Thomas II, 38, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74,

75, 77-79, 185

Johnson, Thomas II ("Deacon Thomas"), 76

Johnson, Thomas II ("of Chatham"), 79

Johnson, Thomas III, 80-84, 224

Kent, Mrs. Abiah, 310, 319, 326

Kilborn, Abigail, 53, 55

Kilbourn, Thomas, 100

Kimball family, 189-203, 227, 228

KimbaU, Abigail, 190, 195

Kimball, Chester, 147, 150, 201-202, 241

Kimball, Chester, Jr., 202

Kimball, Gurdon, 202

Kimball, Lebbeus, 116, 195-200, 241

Kimball, Richard, 188, 189-195, 241

King, Hezekiah, 230, 231

King, Joseph, 98, 99

Knight, John, 126

Knight, Jonathan, 110, 112, 113

Ladd, Nathaniel, 242

Ladd, Samuel, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 171,

182, 183, 185

Lamb family, 153-163

Lamb, David, 153-158

Lamb, David II, 158-162

Lamson, Joseph, 173

Lamson, Nathaniel, 34

Lathrop family, 256

Lathrop, Loring, 235, 236

Lathrop, Luther, 48, 235, 236, 237

Lathrop, Rachel, 208, 210, 212, 214

Lathrop, Submit, 236, 238

Lathrop, Thatcher, 48, 116, 235, 236, 245

Latimore, Elizabeth, 32, 34

Ubanon, 199, 200, 275, 278, 279, 281, 282,

286, 287, 289, 297, 299, 300

Leighton, Richard, 184, 185

Lester, Jonathan, 159, 161, 162

Lindsay, George, 147

Lisbon, 156

Loomis, Giles and Joel, 6, 41, 42

Loomis carvers 243-269,243

Loomis family, 228

Loomis, Amasa, 116, 234, 241, 244, 245, 248,

256,269

Loomis, Anna, 103, 105

Loomis, Capt. Joseph, 90

Loomis, John, 244, 245, 248, 252, 253,

256-58, 260

Loomis, Jonathan, 243-248, 251, 252, 256,

257,260

Loomis, Joseph, 242

Lyman, James Bloyd, 202

Lyme, 29, 30

MacCleave, Robert, 52, 53

Manchester, 213, 216

Manning family, 109-127, 140, 144, 150, 198,

249, 254, 256, 309

Manning Imitators 227-241, 227

Manning style, 195, 196, 201, 247, 248, 269

Manning, Abigail, 119, 121, 125

Manning, Captain John, 328

Manning, Frederick, 116-119, 120, 227, 230

Manning, Josiah, 35, 108, 109-116, 115, 120,

154, 157, 227, 230, 232, 241, 245

Manning, Mary, 114, 116

Manning, RockweU, 116, 119-126, 160, 162,

227, 230, 241

Marvil, Phebe, 23, 24

Mather, Ruth, 43, 45

McGee, Deacon Thomas, 239

Merriam, Revd. Burrage, 79, 80, 87

Middletown, 16, 19, 62, 81, 83, 95

Miller, David, 116

Miller, John, 56

Mills, Pelatiah, Esq., 32

Montville, 161

Mulican family, 184

Mulliken carvers, 188

Mumford, Caleb, 168, 169

New Haven, 88

New London, 169

341

Newington, 27

North Haven, 66

Norwich, 111, 113, 124, 128, 155, 167, 240

Old Lyme, 23, 50, 147
Orford, Vt., 333

Pahner, Capt. Gershom, 63, 64
Palmer, Esther, 231, 232, 233, 240
Pearl, Mary, 233, 240
Pearson, Peter, 28, 29
Pease, Abraham, 310, 320
Pelet, Feles, 52, 55
Pierson, Revd. Abraham, 63
Pomfret, 159, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197
Pompanoosuc, Vt., 336
Portland, 25, 26, 29, 34, 53
Post, Samuel, Jr., 128, 131, 132
Preston, 152
Prince, William, 161, 162

Riley, Lt. Isaac, 69, 70

Ripley, Hannah, 295

Ritter, David, 147

Ritter, Thomas, 97, 206, 210, 214, 216, 236

Rockwell, Matthew, 235, 237

Rocky Hill, 80

Rogers, David A., 202

Rolfes, John, 175, 176

Rudd, Nathaniel, 164, 167

Rust, Richard, 213, 216

Scotland, 121, 122, 232, 247, 328

Sedgwick, Samuell, Captain, 52

Sharpe, Rebekah, 194

Simsbury, 14, 24, 35, 103, 104

Skinner, John, 226, 229, 241

Skinner, Mary, 228, 229, 230, 241

Smith, Captain Obadiah, 167, 168

Smith, Daniel, 72, 74, 86

Smith, Martha, 52, 54

Smith, Richard, Jr., 21, 22

Somers, 321

South Britain, 36

South Windsor, 38, 40, 41, 42, 46, 90, 92, 94,

237,238

Sprague, 113

Stafford, 134

Stanclift family, 17-38

Stanclift, Comfort, 38, 76

Stanclift, George, 36

Stanclift, James, 6

Stanclift, James 1, 15-22, 24, 27

Stanclift, James II, 22, 27, 28, 30, 56, 57, 77,

81,89

Stanclift, James III, 32-35, 37, 56, 81, 89

Stanclift, James III ("James of Chatham"),

Stanclift, James IV, 35

Stanclift, James, Jr. (James III), 36

Stanclift, Olive, 25

Stanclift, Sarah, 28, 29

Stanclift, William, 6, 22-28, 30, 51, 56, 57, 64,

Stedman, Sarah, 40, 41, 48

Stevens, 126

Stevens shop, 88

Stevens, John, 157

Stevens, John 1, 169

Stiles, Stephen, 249, 259

Suffield, 99, 102, 106, 107, 310, 319

Sumner, Deacon Samuel, 191, 192, 193

Sumner, George, and daughters, 195, 197

Sumner, Hannah, 19, 22

Swan, Robert, 173, 174, 175, 179, 180, 183

Sweetland, Isaac, 150

Tallcott, Deacon Joseph, 63, 65

Taylor, Humphrey, 258

Taylor, Sarah, 251

Terry, Ephraim, 285, 287

Tisdale, Abigail, 278, 282

Tolland, 132, 204, 209, 211, 212, 217, 220

Tood, Galup, 64, 66

Treat, Samuel, 72, 75, 86

Trumbull children, 240

Tucker, Gershom, 158, 159

Tucker, Joseph, 116, 226, 229-231, 241

TuUer, Joseph, 33, 35

Tyler, Hopestill, 2nd, 152, 153, 163

Tyler, Jane, 110, 112, 114, 126

Union, 108

342

Vets, Cattron, 103

Wainwright, Ann, 173, 175

Walden family, 116

Walden style, 269

Walden, John I, 231, 232

Walden, John II, 231-234, 240

Walden, John III, 231, 234, 235

Walden, John, Jr., 244

Ward, Jacob, 321, 322

Waterman, Simeon, wife and child, 110, 111

Webster, Pelatiah, 196, 199

West children, 204, 206, 207, 208, 210, 312

West Hartford, 52

West Springfield, Mass., 98

West, Amy, 207, 209

West, Ann, 207, 211

West, Charles, 219, 220

Westbrook, 145

Wethersfield, 54, 55, 65, 70, 71, 73, 75

Wheeler, Obadiah, 4, 130, 140, 188, 228, 245,

246, 249, 252, 259, 270, 271-309

White, Jacob, Jr., 58, 59

White, John, 179, 180, 181, 187

White, Joseph, 63, 66

White, Joseph, Jr., 85

White, Robert, Jr., 134

Williams, Solomon, 300

Willis, Samuel, 82, 83

Willson, Deacon John, 44

Winchel, Captain Joseph, 101, 102

Windham, 114, 115, 283, 285, 288, 290, 291,

295

Windsor, 8, 9, 11, 44, 45, 50, 107

Wolcott, Judith, 72, 73

Wolcott, William, 91, 92

"Womb to Tomb", 122

Woodbridge, William, 90

Woodstock, 239

Woodward, Sarah, 88

Worcester, Jonathan, 184

AGS JOURNALS

MARKERS I Reprint of 1980 journal, a
collection of 15 articles on recording and
care of gravestones, resources for teachers,
some unusual markers and carvers Ithamar
Spauldin of Concord, Mass. and the Connec-
ticut Hook-and-Eye Man.
182 pages, 100 illustrations

MARKERS II Signed stones in New
England and Atlantic coastal states; winged
skull symbolism found in Scotland and New
England; early symbols discussed from a
religious perspective and the wider social
context; Mass. carvers Joseph Barbur, Jr.,
Stephen and Charles Hartshorn, and the car-
ver known as "JN"; Portage County, Wise,
carvers from 1850-1900; and a contemporary
carver of San Angelo, Tex.
226 pages, 168 illustrations

MARKERS V Pennsylvania German
gravestones; carvers Louis Henri Sulhvan,
Thomas Gold, and 7 carvers working in Bos-
ton between 1700-1725 who signed stones
with their initials; Canadian gravestones and
yards in Ontario and Kings County, Nova
Scotia.
240 pages, 155 illustrations.

MARKERS VI John Dwight of Shirley,
Mass.; the gravestones of Afro-Americans
from New England to Georgia; a sociologi-
cal study of monuments in the Chicago area;
New Mexican camposantos; the hand as a
symbol in Southwestern Ontario; a book
review of James Slater's book, Tlie Colonial
Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut; and
an epitaph from ancient Turkey.
245 pages, 90 illustrations

MARKERS III Gravestone styles in fron-
tier towns of Western Massachusetts; the
emblems and epitaphs on Puritan graves-
tones; John Hartshorn's carvings in Essex
County, Mass.; New Hampshire carvers Paul
Colburn., John Ball, Josiah Coolidge Wheat,
Coolidge Wheat and Luther Hubbard.
154 pages, 80 illustrations

MARKERS rV Delaware children's stones
of 1840-99; rural southern gravestones; the
New York and New Jersey carving tradi-
tions; camposantos of New Mexico; and
death Italo-American style.
180 pages, 138 illustrations

MARKERS VII A trilogy on cemetery
gates and enclosures with excellent illustra-
tions. The Boston Historic Burying
Grounds Initiative reports on three
graveyards. Unusual monuments in colonial
tidewater Virginia and the tree stump stones
of the Limestone Belt of Indiana. The life
and work of Virginia stonecarver Charles
Miller Walsh and stonecarvers of Monroe
County, Indiana. Tsimshian Indian monu-
ments and Celtic crosses complete the
volume.
281 pages, 158 illustrations